Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To he considered upon Thursday 3 July.

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

SOUTH YORKSHIRE. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL (By Order)

BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second reading read.

To he read a Second time upon Thursday 3 July.

BLYTH HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second reading read.

To he read a Second lime upon Tuesday 1 July.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Crime Statistics

Mr. Frank Cook: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of the clear-up rate for all crimes in each police force district in England and Wales in 1978 and in 1985.

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of the number of crimes cleared up per police officer in each police force area in England and Wales in 1985.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Yes, Sir, but these figures do not take account of other important aspects of police work, such as crime prevention and public order, so they are of limited value as a measure of police effectiveness.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his commitment to publish these figures. Nevertheless, will he concede that last year's clear-up figures show an appalling total of 2·3 million unsolved crimes? Does he accept that that figure represents an increase of 17 per cent. In

unsolved crime over the 1978 figure, which was the last year for which figures were published for the Labour Government? Does he agree that the only solution to this predicament is to recruit policemen who are trained with a genuine caring attitude towards society and an understanding of the needs of the community, rather than the quick resort to the baton round, the not shield and the water cannon?

Mr. Hurd: The number of crimes cleared up by the police has been rising for some time. The number of cleared up crimes in 1985 was 1—2 million—an increase of 200,000 over the 1978 figure. However, as the hon. Member for Stockton, North suggested, the clear-up rate has been deteriorating for some time, but that deterioration started well before 1978. That is why I announced plans last month for a further increase in the police forces of England and Wales.

Mr. Pike: Does the Home Secretary accept that as the clear-up rate in the Metropolitan police force area is only 18 per cent. compared wth 40 per cent. in other areas, that shows that the Government do not have the solution to the problem? How can the Conservatives say that they are the party of law and order when people outside this House believe that the Government are not able to provide sufficient police to solve crimes?

Mr. Hurd: The public's confidence in the Government will be increased when they contemplate the alternatives. It is important to remember that the clear-up rate is much higher for offences of violence — about 73 per cent.—and lower for burglaries. That is why we place so much emphasis—I hope with the belated support of the Opposition—on crime prevention measures such as we discussed in the seminar at 10 Downing street on Monday.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a special team of police officers in Preston recently cleared up 500 crimes in three weeks and put 10 people in court as a result? Will he pay tribute to the great work done by the police force in Preston, not forgetting those who work on a day-to-day basis to contain the problems of crime, in addition to those in the special task force?

Mr. Hurd: The Lancashire police force is extremely effective, and I am sure that it is especially so in Preston. Across the country, police force by police force the police are experimenting with ways of preventing crime and of catching criminals and bringing them to justice.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party's strategy of promoting personal and family responsibility will ultimately be the best guarantor of law and order? Does he also agree that, notwithstanding the Labour party's newly avowed zeal for law and order, Socialist policies, of their very nature, tend to undermine its basis?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, I certainly agree with that. We look forward to developing that theme in the months and years ahead. My hon. Friend referred in particular to attitudes among Labour Members. The best contribution that they can make to law and order is to do something about those in their own party who ceaselessly undermine the activities of the police.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Home Secretary agree that a good crime clear-up rate depends on the wholehearted commitment of senior officers to detecting crime and that


that commitment has been shown by Mr. John Stalker? Does he also agree that, unfortunately, one reason for Mr. Stalker's suspension is that, in showing that commitment, he recommended the prosecution of senior officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice? If he does not agree with those propositions, will he tell the House why Mr. Stalker has been suspended?

Mr. Hurd: I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should get on to that tack, because he well knows, having served on the Standing Committee which considered the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill 1984, the care with which Parliament has established the procedures and responsibilities for investigating any allegations against the police, senior or less senior, and he will agree that such allegations should be seriously examined. He knows that Parliament has not given to me or to my colleagues in the Home Office any power to intervene in those procedures, until the point is reached when I have to decide, on appeal against any decision, that there has been a disciplinary offence. The hon. and learned Gentleman also knows that Parliament has establised the independent Police Complaints Authority to supervise police investigations of the kind to which he referred. I hope that in this case the procedures laid down by Parliament, with which the hon. and learned Gentleman is well acquainted, will be operated thoroughly and quickly so that the matter to which he referred will be cleared up.

Mr. Franks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at this very moment the chief constable of West Yorkshire is meeting the Police Complaints Authority regarding the deputy chief constable of Manchester? Does he agree that in the interests of natural justice some statement should be made by the Police Complaints Authority later today?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend knows the exact position. In view of the responsibility which I might eventually have as the appellate authority, I had better simply repeat that
I hope that the procedures laid down by Parliament will in this case be operated thoroughly and quickly.

Mr. Dubs: How can the Home Secretary say that the figures for the clear-up rate of crime have only a limited value when up and down the country they are of major concern to people who are suffering from the present crime wave? Is not the truth that, with two thirds of all crimes committed not being cleared up, the Government have a 65 per cent. failure rate? When will the Government get back to the rates pertaining in 1978?

Mr. Hurd: The Labour Front Bench continually tries to promote the fallacy and persuade the country that crime was invented in 1979. The figures of recorded crime and the clear-up rates have been deteriorating for a much longer period than that. What distinguishes the two sides of the House is that we have put resources into the problem, that we have a coherent policy for dealing with it, and that we do not include within our ranks a minority of influential people who undermine the efforts of the police and respect for law and order.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), does my right hon. Friend agree that, while clearly any allegation against a senior officer must be taken seriously and investigated by the Police Complaints

Authority, nevertheless, to an outsider in this matter, there appears to be a degree of character assassination? Is it not essential that, if disciplinary charges are to be brought, they should be formulated rapidly and the necessary procedures take place, or, alternatively, that Mr. Stalker should rapidly be restored to his position?

Mr. Hurd: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, the investigation was set in hand by a decision of the Greater Manchester police authority and it has been placed under the supervision of the independent Police Complaints Authority. That authority, and now the chief constable of West Yorkshire, to whom it entrusted the investigation, has responsibility under the law for the investigation. For the reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend has given, and for other reasons, I agree that the sooner this matter can he cleared up under the procedures laid down by Parliament, the better for all concerned.

Following are the figures.

Clear-up rates for notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force area in 1978 and 1985 (excluding offences of criminal damage of value £20 or under)


England and Wales


Police Force Area
1978 per cent
1985 per cent


Avon and Somerset
42
36


Bedfordshire
46
37


Cambridgeshire
55
40


Cheshire
59
46


Cleveland
55
37


Cumbria
54
49


Derbyshire
45
55


Devon and Cornwall
46
46


Dorset
47
40


Durham
51
45


Essex
44
44


Gloucestershire
51
35


Greater Manchester
46
32


Hampshire
46
37


Hertfordshire
51
52


Humberside
45
40


Kent
40
39


Lancashire
55
47


Leicestershire
57
45


Lincolnshire
57
42


London, City of
23
17


Merseyside
43
35


Metropolitan Police District
21
18


Norfolk
49
41


Northamptonshire
50
39


Northumbria
51
46


North Yorkshire
52
31


Nottinghamshire
49
35


South Yorkshire
53
48


Staffordshire
55
52


Suffolk
55
46


Surrey
49
34


Sussex
56
36


Thames Valley
43
40


Warwickshire
46
38


West Mercia
48
45


West Midlands
34
30


West Yorkshire
49
42


Wiltshire
44
39


Dyfed-Powys
64
55

Clear-up rales for notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force area in 1978 and 1985 (excluding offences of criminal damage of value £20 or under)


England and Wales


Police Force Area
1978 per cent
1985 per cent


Gwent
59
56


North Wales
58
45


South Wales
46
44


England &amp; Wales
42
35

Notifiable offences cleared up per police officer England and Wales 1985



Police Force Area
Number of offences cleared up per officer


Avon and Somerset
9


Bedfordshire
13


Cambridgeshire
11


Cheshire
11


Cleveland
12


Cumbria
11


Derbyshire
13


Devon and Cornwall
11


Dorset
11


Durham
13


Essex
10


Gloucestershire
8


Greater Manchester
12


Hampshire
10


Hertfordshire
12


Humberside
14


Kent
9


Lancashire
10


Leicestershire
12


Lincolnshire
10


London, City of
1


Merseyside
11


Metropolitan Police District
5


Norfolk
11


Northamptonshire
13


Northumbria
21


North Yorkshire
8


Nottinghamshire
14


South Yorkshire
13


Staffordshire
12


Suffolk
10


Surrey
6


Sussex
8


Thames Valley
13


Warwickshire
8


West Mercia
11


West Midlands
10


West Yorkshire
13


Wiltshire
10


Dyfed-Powys
9


Gwent
15


North Wales
11


South Wales
13


England &amp; Wales
10

Crimes (Firearms)

Mr. Jim Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the increase since 1978 in the total number of crimes in England and Wales in which a firearm was used.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): The number of notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used increased from 5,672 in 1978 to 8,376 in 1984. Within these totals the main increases were in respect of robberies and offences of criminal damage.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that the recent study produced by the Home Department into crimes of personal violence shows a dramatic increase in the number of crimes of personal violence related to armed robbery and a dramatic decrease in the number of those crimes that have been cleared up. Will the Minister tell the House of his ideas for changing the law to tighten up the availability of these weapons to criminals?

Mr. Shaw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there has been a substantial increase in the number of armed robberies. Pistols are the largest used category of weapon in those offences — some 1,106 in 1984. The best deterrent to armed crime is the risk of detection and severe punishment, and that is why the police will continue to have our full support in their efforts to bring those responsible before the courts. That is also why we have announced in the criminal justice White Paper our intention to increase to life imprisonment the maximum penalty for carrying firearms in furtherance of crime.

Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that if capital punishment were to be reintroduced there would be a dramatic decrease in armed robbery?

Mr. Shaw: I am aware that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members feel strongly about these issues. He will know, of course, that there is a case for the other point of view.

Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Minister come clean on a point that I put to him in last night's debate? I suggested that there was a major loophole in the Firearms Act 1968 which allows any holder of a foreign passport to go to any gun shop, sports shop or gunsmith in Britain and, without restriction, buy any amount of shotguns or ammunition. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case? If it is the case, will he tell the House what he proposes to do about it?

Mr. Shaw: It is the case that section 14 of the 1968 Act allows that. In the next review of firearms legislation, the 1968 Act will be one of the major pieces of legislation that we shall look at.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Minister confirm that in cases where firearms are carried in the course of robbery, the judiciary has made a practice of imposing substantial prison sentences over and above those that the offences would otherwise attract? Does he agree that that is a highly welcome development?

Mr. Shaw: I do agree; and it is essential that the public should see that those who carry firearms for whatever illicit purpose receive very severe penalties.

Mr. Soley: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is another example


of why we need a committee set up in the Home Office and not the rather feeble consultation procedure by which the Minister tried to calm his Back Benchers last night during the debate on the firearms order. When will the Home Secretary reply to my letter of 26 March, which suggested that this was precisely the sort of issue about which we could be forewarned if we had a committee of the type that I have described?

Mr. Shaw: If the hon. Gentleman had allowed a reasonable time for responses to be made in last night's debate, he might have received a reply. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Thurnham: In view of the success of neighbourhood watch schemes in deterring serious crimes, would my right hon. Friend condemn those who criticise such schemes, especially the Labour-controlled Manchester City police committee?

Mr. Shaw: I certainly would. My hon. Friend is right. There is no area of the country that can afford to have a police committee that takes a disinterested view towards the prevention of crime. It is absurd for the Manchester City police committee to publish a paper which is designed to undermine the authority of the police force.

Fraud

Mr. Clelland: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to improve the investigation of (a) local and (b) transnational fraud.

Mr. Hurd: The report of the fraud trials' committee, under Lord Roskill's chairmanship, which we received earlier this year, provides an excellent basis for legislation and administrative action. We are now completing our consideration of the committee's many recommendations, including those affecting the investigation of fraud, and aim to bring proposals for legislation before Parliament in the next Session.

Mr. Clelland: Will the Home Secretary explain why so little emphasis is placed on tax fraud compared with that placed on social security fraud? Is he not aware that the latest estimates put the amount of money lost through tax fraud at more than 35 times the amount of money lost through social security fraud? Yet, for every one person gaoled for tax fraud, 20 are gaoled for social security fraud. Is this not yet another sign that the Government have one set of rules for the rich and another for the poor?

Mr. Hurd: No, Sir. That is a familiar charge, and I rebut it in a familiar way. If the hon. Gentleman tables a question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will be told of the extent of the effort that the Inland Revenue is putting into pursuing tax fraud. As for fraud in a wider context, when the hon. Gentleman reads the Criminal Justice Bill, which we hope will be presented in the next Session, he will become aware of the rigorous and stern approach that the Government are adopting.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is little or no support for the abolition of jury trials in fraud cases? Does he accept that the most effective measures that can be taken to put an end to fraud are to strengthen the size of the investigating police force, to bring in more financial experts to assist the police, and to improve the extradition procedures between friendly states?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. and learned Friend picks out three admirable recommendations from Lord Roskill's report and puts his weight behind them. On extradition, I have already announced that we intend to act on the lines set out in the report. Trial by jury of complex fraud cases is one of the tricky matters on which we have to complete our consideration.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Home Secretary aware that his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said some time ago that he found the level of City fraud unacceptable? Notwithstanding that, the Home Department has failed to get anybody over to see Peter Cameron Webb and Peter Dixon in America, who have got away with £39 million as a result of fraudulent activities at Lloyd's. Yet, despite that, a common law bailiff has managed to serve a writ on them. It is a fine state of affairs when this law-and-order Government cannot deal with someone who has got away with £39 million, yet are hounding people at social security offices throughout the country.

Mr. Hurd: The investigation to which the hon. Gentleman refers is nothing to do with me. I am glad to be able to infer from what he said that when he reads our proposals for strengthening the law and the administration of the investigation of fraud, we shall have his support.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the council of Lloyd's is pursuing the PCW people with the utmost vigour and will welcome anything that the Government can do to pursue them with equal severity?

Mr. Hurd: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct in both of his remarks.

Mr. Corbett: The Home Secretary said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that the PCW affair has nothing to do with him. Why does he keep promising jam tomorrow? Is he aware that tax fraud has been estimated to be running at £3,000 million a year'? When will he do something about that'? Is he further aware that the latest annual report of the City of London police states that it faces a 60 per cent. rise in fraud investigations this year, with £482 million at risk? When will we get action?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has not noticed the increases which I have announced in the strength of the Metropolitan police. One reason or justification for doing that was precisely to increase its resources for the investigation of fraud. The remainder of the proposals in the Roskill report require legislation. Some of them will be controversial, and the hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain if we were to rush ahead with that without proper consideration.

Detention Centres

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his future policy for detention centres.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): Detention centres will continue to provide accommodation for those male young offenders on whom the courts impose short custodial sentences. The regime is being positively developed to provide a suitable programme of activity


within the statutory aims and general principles of detention centres, and the system will continue to be kept under review.

Mr. Maclennan: Does that complacent and bland answer not suggest that the Minister has not made himself aware of his Department's findings that the rate of re-offending by those held in such institutions is at least as bad as that of others in other young offenders' institutions? Will he now recognise that the experiment has failed and that the brutalising regime of those detention centres should be discontinued?

Mr. Mellor: I am glad to be accused of blandness by the SDP's answer to Bird's instant whip. The aim of the detention centre regimes has been to establish the significance for young offenders of briskness, good appearance and punctuality, to which I am sure the SDP attaches importance. We shall continue to work along those lines.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that detention centres have an important part to play in how we handle young offenders, and that those who criticise detention centres rarely put forward viable proposals that would deal with this category of youngster?

Mr. Mellor: I agree with my hon. Friend. When a short sentence must be served, it is difficult to establish the kind of training regime that we have in youth custody centres. We must make the most constructive use of the limited time. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recognition of that.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Minister accept that the Government's much-publicised introduction of the short, sharp shock at detention centres has been shown by Home Office research to have failed to reduce re-offending among youngsters and to have had no impact on the general level of crime? Does not that failure strengthen the argument for a single generic youth custody sentence, so that even the shortest sentences can be made as constructive as possible?

Mr. Mellor: I appreciate that there is a lively and worthwhile argument about whether there should be a single or a dual sentence, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the difficulty remains, as I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), that there comes a point below which, in sentencing terms, it is impossible to adopt a proper training regime. The importance of the short, sharp shock—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mellor: Of course, the hon. Gentleman knows better. He always does on these issues. But if he will bear with me, I can tell him that the significance of the short, sharp shock regime is that it enables us to come to terms with the best regime that can be devised to deal with those short periods. Since last year, that is what we have endeavoured to do.

Committee on Broadcasting (Report)

Mr. Chope: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the criteria to be used to determine the respective timings of the publication of (a) the report of the Committee on Broadcasting charied by Professor Peacock and (b) the Government's response to that report.

Mr. Hurd: My aim is to give the House the earliest opportunity to read the published report, together with our initial response to it.

Mr. Chope: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the publication is eagerly awaited, not least to see whether the report contains anything that has not already been leaked? To what extent will there be public consultation upon it, and to what extent will the publication discourage the BBC from issuing news broadcasts which contain comment thinly disguised and masquerading as news?

Mr. Hurd: I have noticed a certain interest in the report. Perhaps next week there will be an opportunity, if Professor Peacock agrees, for it to be published and for me to give a first response to it. It will have to be a first response, because it will contain much which the House and people outside will wish to discuss, including no doubt my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Home Secretary aware that any attempt to privatise Radios 1 and 2 will be fiercely resisted, as will any move to force the BBC to sell off any of its services? In his first response, will he say what study his Department is making of the damage that will be done to independent radio if Radios 1 and 2 are sold off?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is leaping ahead. He may have an opportunity to comment on this when the report is published. There have been a good many leaks, and he has drawn on one or two. What has been lacking in any leak that I have seen is an account or summary of the interesting philosophy which underlies the report.

Crime Prevention

Mr. Neil Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the Government's strategy for crime prevention.

Mr. Hurd: I receive many letters on crime prevention and am encouraged by the increasing support for the Government's initiatives in crime prevention.
On Monday I had the opportunity at our latest seminar to discuss the further development of those practical initiatives with a wide range of practical people representing industries and unions, central and local government, police, education and others.

Mr. Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend received any representations on this subject from Manchester city council? Is he aware of the crime prevention strategy which that council enthusiastically pursues, supported by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), and of its police committee support unit, whose sole purpose seems to be to attack and undermine the police? It publishes a scurrilous publication called "Police Watch", which, in its first issue, seemed to accuse the Greater Manchester police force of conniving at murders, and seems to believe that the neighbourhood watch scheme is an exercise in setting up a secret police. Does my right hon. Friend think that that encourages effective policing in Manchester and is an effective crime prevention strategy?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. I am deeply worried about what is coming out of the city of Manchester. It seems to be following the worst example of the worst London boroughs in its anti-police activities. These are the


followers of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), in his city. What we do not yet know is whether he has either the power or the will to do anything about it.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Does the Secretary of State recall that whenever any Opposition Member or member of the public suggests that the solution to the problems of education, housing and health involves increased public expenditure, the Government invariably reply that problems are not solved by hurling money at them? Does he realise that his Government have done nothing but hurl money at this problem, yet the crime rate has become worse and worse in each successive year?

Mr. Hurd: The serious answer is that public money should be spent on all the policies in which the hon. Gentleman is interested. The difficulty that we constantly find is that existing institutions are not targeting that high public expenditure effectively. That is part of the purpose of the inner city initiative of my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General.

Mr. Malins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the enormous encouragement that the Department has given to neighbourhood watch schemes. In London they have proved very successful, and in my constituency the increase in the number of neighbourhood watch schemes has been matched by a reduction in the number of burglaries and other crimes. I urge my right hon. Friend to continue to encourage these schemes.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I know that his borough is one of the leaders in that respect. There are now 14,500 neighbourhood or home watch schemes, which is more than twice as many as a year ago. This is not the result of any diktat from the Home Office or the police — although we encourage such schemes— but is rather the spontaneous wish of those living in such neighbourhoods. I hope that, regardless of party, everyone will give them a helping hand.

Mr. Chris Smith: Would not by far the best strategy for crime prevention be to ensure that local authorities have the proper resources to enable them to keep the streets well lit and their council estates more secure, better designed and patrolled? Have the Government not spent the past seven years going in precisely the opposite direction and has that not endangered crime prevention, rather than securing it?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman would not make those remarks if he had been at our seminar and had heard about the priority estates project of the Department of the Environment. Plenty of practical people were there, and they could tell the hon. Gentleman about it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and his Department wish to tackle the design of housing estates and remedy the huge public expenditure mistakes that were made 20 or 30 years ago. At that time huge sums were spent, but wrongly spent.

Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the citizens of Manchester widely welcome neighbourhood watch schemes, and that those who oppose them are the criminals and also Manchester city council? Is it not a matter of grave concern that, instead of supporting neighbourhood watch schemes, that council is using ratepayers' money to finance a scurrilous anti-police publication, called "Police Watch-? Is it not sheer humbug

on the part of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to lecture the Government about law and order, when he does not have the guts to condemn his fellow Socialists on Manchester city council?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. Now that the right hon. Member for Gorton has been converted to crime prevention, I hope that he will go and tell his supporters, or his masters, on Manchester city council what it is all about, and that, instead of nitpicking and finding imaginary difficulties, they should set about encouraging people in Manchester to join this effort.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What of the Government's strategy on the prevention of kidnap crimes? Is the Secretary of State aware that when the Cunningham brothers were being tried in the courts in Dublin last week over the Guinness kidnap, Mr. Patrick McEntee, the solicitor for the Cunningham brothers said that the reason why they kidnapped the Guinness woman was that they knew that she was covered by kidnap insurance? Does that not indicate that kidnap insurance acts as an incentive to kidnap, and how is the review coming on in the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Hurd: Slowly, because of the genuine difficulties, of which the hon. Gentleman knows, in dealing with this matter unilaterally or in trying to prevent the payment of ransom in these cases. The hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties— he has tabled many questions. I accept that the problem is a genuine one and if we can find practical ways of tackling it we will do so.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to improving the lighting on council housing estates and on side streets, where a lot of crime is occurring because the perpetrators can get away without being seen?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. The positioning of street lighting is crucial. Many mistakes have been made in this respect in the past, and this is one of the areas that my right hon. Friend and his Department and local authorities are energetically tackling.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any claim that the Government have a crime prevention strategy could come only from a Home Secretary who is a writer of imaginative fiction? Is it not a fact that, with 4 million serious crimes last year in Great Britain, the Government's law and order policy has collapsed, and that these crime prevention seminars that the Government hold at Downing street are meaningless gimmicks that are almost completely non-productive? When will the Government take serious action to bring the crime level down to the 2·5 million which they inherited from the Labour Government. which that Government said was too much and which they said they would cure, because it has risen by 1·5 million since then?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman's appearance is at least one up for the parliamentary clear-up rate, anyway.
If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the kind of measures that we were discussing on Monday, namely, the formation of a British Standard to improve the security of motor cars, or the agreement of 10 to 15 insurance companies and brokers to give discounts to people who improve the security of their own houses, are gimmicks, he


is a long way from reality. They are very practical steps, along with dozens of others, to encourage people to take sensible measures to prevent crime.

Autocrime

Mr. Maples: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with motor manufacturers about progress on a British standard for car locks as a method of deterring theft of, or from, cars.

Mr. Forth: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in devising a strategy for combating autocrime.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Representatives of motor manufacturers and agents attended the crime prevention seminar which my right hon. Friend chaired on Monday. Autocrime was one of the subjects examined and good progress is being made.
The first part of a British Standard on vehicle security, which is being prepared with the co-operation of the manufacturers, will be published in the autumn. It will define, for the first time, a performance-based specification for secure locking systems. We will continue to urge car owners to use the security equipment available to them. We are undertaking a wide range of publicity campaigns and the motor manufacturers will be improving the advice on car security which they give to car owners.

Mr. Maples: The introduction of such a standard will be widely welcomed as a real practical step in the fight against car theft. Will my hon. Friend try to see that any such standard that is imposed in this country is imposed throughout the EEC, so that British manufactuers are not placed at a disadvantage?

Mr. Shaw: Yes, indeed. I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion. We intend to do that. It will be a lengthy process before it can be adopted as a European directive, but we shall certainly try.

Mr. Forth: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply on this most important matter. Is he satisfied with the incentives and the publicity to encourage car owners along these lines? More important, is he satisfied with the penalties that are available to magistrates to impose on those who are found guilty of autocrime?

Mr. Shaer: My hon. Friend raises a fair point on penalties. He is right in his view that so often these penalties are not sufficient to deal with the problem. I ressure my hon. Friend on his first point. Not only will we spend money on television publicity to ensure that the autocrime problem is drawn to the attention of the public, but the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea has agreed to circulate leaflets to every person who receives a licence from the centre.

Mr. Parry: Does the Minister agree that greater security car locks will help to reduce the number of young joyriders who take cars? In my constituency a number of young people have been killed when driving these vehicles and a number of innocent pedestrians have also been killed. The Ministr will be aware that those who are killed in the incidents are not covered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. He lays stress on the fact that autocrime, which accounted for

846,000 criminal incidents last year, is largely an opportunist event. The police estimate that between 70 and 90 per cent. of all autocrime, whether pinching a vehicle or pinching from it, is entirely opportunist and that it can so easily be prevented by properly secured vehicles.

Radioactivity

Mr. Robert Banks: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responsibility local authorities bear to ensure that information on local levels of radioactivity is disseminated rapidly to all concerned organisations and departments.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Under the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 local authorities must plan for the collection and distribution of information about the effects of hostile attack. There is no analogous responsibility for peacetime disasters. The Government's review of emergency arrangements in the light of the Chernobyl incident will include the role of local authorities.

Mr. Banks: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Who is responsible for measuring radiation in local areas, and is he satisfied that they have a sufficient number of radiation detectors? In view of the lack of information following the Chernobyl disaster about what people should or should not do, will he ensure that machinery is set up to cope with any future incident of a similar nature?

Mr. Shaw: I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be conducting a wide-ranging review of all forms of monitoring of an incident of this character. As for civil defence, my hon. Friend will be aware that the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation does not have instruments that could measure such low levels of radiation as those that have recently been experienced.

Mr. Corbett: Given that local authorities rely in part on the National Radiological Protection Board, has the Minister seen its June bulletin, which protests that "in recent years the cash limit has been systematically reduced in real terms"?
How can the public have faith in the advice of either the board or the Government on radiation levels if the board is denied adequate funds with which to carry out its independent role?

Mr. Shaw: The board's role, and indeed the system over which it presides, will be considered in the assessment of the post-Chernobyl situation.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of supplying radiation survey meters to all local authorities as soon as possible so that the population may be reassured, whenever necessary, if there should be a future disaster similar to the one at Chernobyl?

Mr. Shaw: Im my previous answer I said that the role of local authorities will be considered in the review of the post-Chernobyl incident. My hon. Friend should be aware that it is essential to have a national system wherby accurate measurements of this kind can be issued to the public in an understandable way.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister accept that local authorities are keen to assist with the dissemination of such important information? What information has been


sent by his Department to local authorities since the Chernobyl disaster that might assist them in carrying out their duties in this regard?

Mr. Shaw: The Home Office has not issued information of that kind to local authorities, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that in relation to civil defence, which is a Home Office responsibility, the passage of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) will allow local authorities to use civil defence grants to cover peacetime disasters as well.

Litter

Dr. Michael Clark: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate the number of prosecutions that have taken place for litter offences during the last period for which figures are available.

Mr. Mellor: In 1984, 1,552 defendants were prosecuted under the Litter Act 1983, and 639 under the Refuse (Amenity) Act 1978.

Dr. Clark: I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware that I am a little disappointed in those figures, because I, too, would like to see a higher clear-up rate. As our towns, cities and countryside are disgraced by the amount of litter that one sees around the place, does my hon. Friend think that this is because the law is not adequate, or because the police forces are not given the right instructions?

Mr. Mellor: I think that it is because people drop litter and fly-tip when they should not. The Department of the Environment has in hand initiatives to deal with that problem. I think that the law is adequate, although there may be some question whether penalties are appropriate. Although the fine for dropping litter is a maximum £400, the average fine last year was £26, and although the fine for fly-tipping is a maximum £1,000, the average fine last year was on £36. I must say to my hon. Friend that there are so many calls on the time of the police that it is difficult for us to assert that they should give a greater priority to prosecuting those who drop litter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Stan Thorne: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 June.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have been asked to reply
My right hon. Friend is attending the European Council in the Hague.

Mr. Thorne: The Lord Privy Seal will have seen the statement by the Eminent Persons Group that unless economic measures are taken against South Africa the cost will be counted in millions of lives. What will the Government do about that catastrophe.

Mr. Biffen: Initially we shall discuss this matter with our allies, and that is precisely what is happening at The Hague. We shall determine a policy that takes account not only of our desire for peaceful change in South Africa but of national interest.

Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend note that in a radio broadcast last week an Indian Member of the South

African Parliament said of the EPG meeting that those who had made that report should have taken careful note of its effect on the South African blacks and that he resisted the idea of economic sanctions because he believed that they would not be in their interests?.

Mr. Biffen: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. These are all views that can be tested against the developments that will proceed from the conference at The Hague. We are wise to proceed with a very clear commitment that whatever is done shall be seen to be effective in the context of co-operation with our allies.

Mr. Kinnock: Following that question from the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), will the right hon. Gentleman also take note that the non-white Members of the so-called tri-cameral Parliament walked out when Botha used the President's council to overrule their objections to the Internal Security Act, which gives totalitarian powers?
I welcome the Government's belated, but none the less significant decision, to meet Oliver Tambo, President of the African National Congress. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to treat the claim by Radio South Africa this morning that this meeting was "a capitulation to terrorism" with the contempt that it deserves. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that the reaction of the South African regime to that modest and sensible act of dialogue is evidence of the need to intensify pressure against the South African Government, as that is the only language that Botha will ever understand?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office made quite clear the terms under which the discussions took place with Mr. Tambo. They underline the Government's determination to have a forward policy in these matters, but one which above all must always be related to the test of effectiveness, within which we are co-operating with our colleagues in western Europe, North America and Japan. It is a modest but realistic policy, and stands in total contrast to what the right hon. Gentleman constantly reaffirms, which is his commitment to comprehensive and mandatory sanctions. We believe that that would be disastrous for this country and disastrous for relationships with South Africa.

Mr. Kinnock: I am prepared to accept that the right hon. Gentleman at least wants to see an end to apartheid. Does he think that the steps taken by the Government so far have been, to use his word, effective?

Mr. Biffen: The test of effectiveness is the way in which we can co-operate with all others who are engaged in this enterprise. [Interruption.] Oh yes it is. Once we are picked off one by one, the whole question of effectiveness is a total illusion. The right hon. Gentleman knows in his heart that nobody can stand at either Dispatch Box and say with certainty what are the economic consequences of action that we take and what are the political developments that flow from them.

Mr. Kinnock: If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government want those sanctions to apply to all, will he now tell me why the Government vetoed the mandatory sanctions in the United Nations last week, which was the one measure that would ensure that they applied to all?

Mr. Biffen: Because we think that in the first instance we should move in close co-operation with our allies, and secondly that we should have modest objectives which are attainable.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has as much right to be heard as anybody else.

Mr. Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that peaceful reform in South Africa is far more likely to take place in conditions of full employment and economic prosperity than in conditions of devastation and destruction, as proposed by the Opposition? Will he get a message to the Prime Minister at The Hague that the Government should be thinking of positive measures to increase investment in South Africa and increase the influence of British companies in that country, so that this initiative will be received by the South African Government as a way of helping them rather than hindering them towards peaceful reform?

Mr. Biffen: The initial task of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary at The Hague is to concert a policy in conjunction with our colleagues which can then be put on an effective basis and which will have clear and determinable objectives. That is a great deal more important than engaging in a moral foghorn approach to the policy, as has been suggested by some Opposition Members.

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 June 1986.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stewart: In the light of a Foreign Office Minister having seen a representative of the ANC, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that the Government should now see a representative of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, since the one-sided attitude of the American President is not conducive to a peace settlement in that area?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman's proposition is based on the assumption that there has never been a meeting of a Minister with the PLO. That is not true. There was a meeting, when my right hon. Friend, now the Home Secretary, urged upon the PLO the virtues of nonviolence.

Mr. Galley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 June 1986.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Galley: Will my right hon. Friend accept a modest criticism, that Ministers could perhaps be even more vigorous in extolling the virtues of the Government? Should they not say, frequently and without apology, that the vast majority of people in this country have never been better off in their lives? Should they not highlight the reductions in nationalised industry prices for the first time

in living memory? Should they not emphasise the soundness of the economy, when, in the face of a dramatic oil price reduction it has reacted with hardly a murmur? If the Opposition had been in power they would have been scurrying around like headless chickens looking up the International Monetary Fund and issuing a series of mini budgets. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is selfish to take as long as that.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point. He argues that the Government have a formidable list of achievements to their credit, and that it lies upon all Tories to be arch-evangelists to ensure that that record is more widely appreciated. We have a period—I do not know how long, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition hopes that it will he longer rather than shorter — in which to obtain public recognition of those achievements, and we shall do so.

Dr. Owen: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the over 9 million people who are living at or below the supplementary benefit level appreciate the policies of the Government? What does he intend to do about that, since there has been a 50 per cent. increase since the Conservative party took office?

Mr. Biffen: I preface my reply to the right hon. Gentleman by saying how much I enjoyed almost all or his remarks about South Africa on the radio this morning, which clearly puts him with us, if not with the Liberal party. [Interruption.] In reply to the substantive question, perhaps I can say that the report by the Low Pay Unit should be taken alongside the fact that under this Government supplementary benefit has increased in real terms, that for those on less than average earnings real take-home pay has increased substantially, and that there has been an increase in the tax threshold which has taken 1·5 million people out of taxation. I believe that any balanced reading of the position would not come to the social conclusions of the lobbyists behind the Low Pay Unit.

Mr. Proctor: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Harvey Proctor.

Dr. Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take it afterwards, at the usual time. Mr. Harvey Proctor.

Dr. Owen: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall not take it now. I shall take it afterwards, at the usual time.

Orsett

Mr. Proctor: asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Orsett.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Proctor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Orsett will naturally be disappointed with that response, as they would have taken the opportunity to show the Prime Minister the green fields that will be built on if Tillingham Hall is allowed to go ahead in the green belt of Essex? Realising that my right hon. Friend is unable to comment on We detail of the outstanding


appeal which has been to public inquiry, will he re-emphasise that it is general Government policy not to allow development in the green belt, except in exceptional circumstances?

Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for his understanding of the fact that I cannot comment on something that is subject to appeal. I assure him that it is general Government policy to seek the preservation of the green belt. That must be at the heart of any constructive and socially constructive environmental policy.

Mr. Clelland: Is the Leader of the House not concerned about the increasing lawlessness of his Government, to such an extent that they have constantly had to introduce retrospective legislation to get themselves off the hook? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latest example of that is that the Home Secretary, who has now received—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must make his question relative to a visit to Orsett. Can he do that?

Mr. Clelland: Will the Leader of the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall help the hon. Member. Let us take it as read.

Mr. Biffen: I think that I could better answer the question if the specific instance of alleged retrospective legislation were put to me.

Mr. Alan Howarth: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 June.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Howarth: Has my right hon. Friend seen a report which finds that the number of individual shareholders in the United Kingdom has risen to no less than 16 per cent. of the population, which is the same figure as in Japan and only 3 per cent. less than in the United States? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will he a continuing welcome for the Government's policies of privatisation and wider share ownership, which serve not only to increase the nation's wealth, but to underpin independence and dignity?

Mr. Biffen: I agree with my hon. Friend's points. The personal equity plan? Which was announced in this year's Budget, is just one further example of the attempt to develop people's capitalism. I am certain that that will be at the heart of the election appeal which we shall put in the most effective form and in such a way as to console my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley).

Mr. Chris Smith: This morning when the Secretary of State for Energy made such a ringing declaration of the Government's devotion to nuclear power and its future in Britain's energy production, was he speaking for the Government as a whole? Do the Government show any concern for the enormous public anxiety about the safety of nuclear power in the aftermath of Chernobyl?

Mr. Biffen: Of course my right hon. Friend was speaking on behalf of the Government. This Administration need no instruction on the necessity for safety in the development of a nuclear programme. Before anyone casts aspersions, express or otherwise, on the quality of work in our nuclear industry, and what it has

already achieved in terms of safety, let it be understood that it will be a poor day for this country when its energy choice is capriciously narrowed to deliver it more and more into the hands of the interest groups which would otherwise serve it.

Dr. David Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Leader of the House wants to associate with the policy of these Benches, both Liberal and Social Democrat, of wishing to support bans on new investment in South Africa, private bank loans and direct air flights—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This must be a point of order, and not a further question.

Dr. Owen: I shall reiterate my point. If the Leader of the House wishes to associate with the policies of these Benches, including a ban—[interruption.] Mr. Speaker, I am going to be heard.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member is right, but he must obey the rules and direct the point of order to me.

Dr. Owen: Yes, Sir. This point of order is for you. I am saying through you. Mr. Speaker, that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I know what is upsetting the right hon. Member. I ask him to put the point of order to me, and I shall ascertain whether I can deal with it.

Dr. Owen: My point of order, Sir, is that, if the Leader of House wishes to associate with our policy, surely—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—he should do so directly and not abuse Question Time when answering a question on supplementary benefit and the 9 million people who are living below the poverty line. Mr. Speaker, you would not allow any other hon. Member to answer a question in the way that the Leader of the House sought to do. I am putting it to you that that was an abuse of Question Time. It should not be allowed. There are rights in the House for minorities and we expect you to uphold them. We would have expected you to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman when he abused Question Time— [Interruption.]—as you would have done with any other hon. Member. We understand the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member is making an accusation, and I cannot quite hear it.

Dr. Owen: I am delighted that you should want to hear it, Mr. Speaker, without the noise. The point to you was that there was an abuse of Question Time procedure by the Leader of the House. If anybody else had sought to answer a question which had not been put, he would have been called to order by you and not been allowed to do so. The question related to supplementary benefit and poverty—issues which are of some concern to some hon. Members — not to South Africa. If the Leader of the House wishes to dissociate himself from his party's policy, he should do it in another way.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anybody that it was an open question and that I am not responsible in any way for the content of answers. We frequently hear things in the House which we do not like. That is what democracy is all about.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. David Steel.

Mr. David Steel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, there is a serious point of order for you. This is the second time this week that the Minister answering at the Dispatch Box seeks in the reply to distort the policy which my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and I have been pursuing on South Africa. On Tuesday it was the Prime Minister and today it was the Leader of the House. My point of order is that it is not understood outside the House why the Deputy Leader of the Labour party should be allowed to come back three times on a question, whereas we are not allowed to reply to the answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is well known to him. We have a convention in the House of two Front Benches, and he knows that that has been a long observed tradition. On his second question, throughout the questions to Home Office Ministers various Back-Bench Members attempted to imply that the policy of the Opposition was not entirely in tune. It is not unknown for similar accusations to be made against the Government party or the right hon. Gentleman's party.

Mr. Ian Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not clear that the two points of

order raised by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the leader of the SDP, and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the leader of the Liberal party, have been brought before the House because of the exposure of the profound differences of view between the two right hon. Gentlemen? Would it not be of assistance to you if the two right hon. Gentlemen sat beside one another, if they could possibly hear to do so?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to assist me. I should now like to be of assistance to the House: business questions.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I do not need any more help.

Mr. Skinner: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that we all worry about the distorted answers that we receive to our questions? My point of order is that today, having heard the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), it is evident that you should seriously consider running a little class—a sort of seminar—to which you can invite hon. Members and where you can provide them with the sort of ingenuity that is needed to raise a point of order and to make a further point at the same time.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 30 JUNE AND TUESDAY I JULY—Debate on a motion to approve the statement on the Defence Estimates 1986 (Cmnd. 9763).
At the end on Tuesday, Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 2 JULY—Until seven o'clock, motions on Social Security Regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, the Airports Bill and the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill.
THURSDAY 3 JULY—There will be a debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied.
Remaining stages of the Outer Space Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 4 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 7 JULY — Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Debate on the tin industry on a Government motion.
[Wednesday 2 July:
Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1986.
Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1986.
Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1986
Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Amendment Regulations 1986
Housing Benefit (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1986.]

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and not only for that reply. I thank him for responding to my request made two weeks ago, for Government time to discuss the awful plight of the tin industry. The Government's concern should extend to action to help Cornwall, and not be limited to the gift of three hours debating time on Monday.
When the right hon. Gentleman assured me last week that the Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill would be taken separately from the debates planned for today and tomorrow, I did not expect that the Government would relegate it to after 10 o'clock next Tuesday. Nor, I suspect, did the right hon. Gentleman expect that he would be part of such a shabby manouevre. Will he recognise the seriousness of the Bill and its implications to the constitution, and give a day and time for Third Reading that will allow hon. Members on both sides of the House an opportunity to expose fully the real and potential dangers of the Bill's provisions?
Since Peel established the Church Commissioners in the 1840s, their annual report has never been debated. As their latest report was issued yesterday, and in view of the archbishop's statements on sanctions against South

Africa, can the Government find time to make a historic breakthrough and ensure that the Church Commissioners' report is debated?
I ask once more when the Government will table a motion for the reinstatement of private Members' time following the dirty tricks that led to the loss of business on Friday 6 June. The right hon. Gentleman has now conceded twice on this matter, but we still await the motion, so I hope that he can make an announcement today.
Finally, I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that the Prime Minister makes an early statement on South Africa following her discussions with the EC Council of Ministers in The Hague.

Mr. Biffen: I shall take the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in their given sequence.
I recognise that many would wish for more time to be given to a debate on the tin industry, but we are now moving into July when time is at a premium. I hope that we can have a satisfactory debate covering all the issues that have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
I understand that there is a great affection for the Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill to be other than the time that I have given. I again say that we are under considerable time constraints, and I cannot reasonably hold open to the House the prospect that that time is likely to be changed.
As to the debate on the Church Commissioners, the right hon. Gentleman properly reminded us that not since the days of Robert Peel in 1840 has this device been made use of. He quite properly underlined the growing sense of historical nostalgia that affects the Labour party. Only last week, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was extolling the virtues of the House of Lords in their activities. I shall look charitably on the suggestion, but I cannot be too forthcoming.
As to the question of private Members' time, I shall be tabling a motion today proposing that private Members' motions are taken until 7 o'clock on Monday 14 July. I fully understand and underline the importance of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister making a statement to the House next week, and that is arranged for Tuesday.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I revert after a decent interval to the early-day motion about the miscarriage of justice in the Maguire case.
(That this House notes the widespread concern felt in Parliament by eminent scientists, by other responsible observers and by members of the public who have viewed programmes on the matter screened by Channel 4, that Anne Maguire, Patrick Maguire (senior), Vincent Maguire (then aged 17), Patrick Maguire (then aged 14), Sean Smyth, Patrick O'Neill and the late Guiseppe Conlon, sentenced in 1976 to long terms of imprisonment since served, now appear, despite confirmation of their convictions at the time by the Court of Appeal, to have been entirely innocent of the crime with which they were charged; further notes at the conclusion of a debate in the other place on 17th May 1975, the recognition by the Parliamentary Under Secretary at the Home Office of the strength of feeling on the matter in that House and his pledge to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what had been said; and therefore earnestly urges the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the interests of the highest standards


of British justice of which this country needs to feel rightly proud, to move without delay for a review of these convictions, either under the provisions of section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, or by such other process of review as he may deem appropriate to this disturbing case.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are grateful for the interest being taken in the matter by the Home Secretary? Will he keep open a suitable slot for discussion on the Floor of the House of this miscarriage of justice?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of my hon. Friend's point, which he has made with such engaging persistence over the months. He will agree that this is the time of the year when opportunities are available for those matters to be raised through the initiative of private Members. I hope that he will be successful in that context.

Mr. David Steel: In the light of the anxiety expressed on both sides of the House this afternoon, will the Leader of the House have words with the Attorney-General, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and arrange for a statement to be made next week on the police inquiries being conducted by Chief Constable Sampson? Is he aware that, even before those inquiries are completed and acted upon, there are matters upon which the House is entitled to have answers? The House wants to know who was involved in the decision to take Deputy Chief Constable Stalker off the RUC inquiry. Will his work and recommendations be included in Chief Constable Sampson's report? Mr. Stalker and Mr. Taylor have been under investigation for some weeks. They should be prosecuted or have their names cleared.

Mr. Biffen: As the right hon. Gentleman has fairly observed, an inquiry is proceeding. That inhibits what can be done by my right hon. Friends, but I shall make the representations that he has requested.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the early-day motion in my name and that of many hon. Members on both sides of the House?
(That this House requests Her Majesty's Government to provide parliamentary time for consideration of the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Bill which has completed all its stages in the House of Lords.]
Will he make available time for discussion of this important matter, bearing in mind the fact that a similar Bill has already passed through all its stages in the House of Lords on three previous occasions? This is the fourth attempt in the other place to initiate proper discussion of the matter in this House.

Mr. Biffen: My right hon. and learned Friend makes the point all the more effectively because of the record of the other place in this matter. I cannot be too hopeful at this time in the parliamentary year, but I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Can the Leader of the House be a little more forthcoming than was the Home Secretary this afternoon about the timing of the publication of the Peacock report? With his responsibilities to the House as a whole, can he say exactly when that report will be in our hands?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to elaborate on what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said. I assure him that there will be no delay in securing the publication of the Peacock report.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend give more details about the debate on Monday week on the tin crisis? It would be helpful to know the nature of the Government motion. Will he ensure that that motion recognises the fact that the problem affects Cornwall, the City of London and the entire country? It would be sad if the three-hour debate were swamped by lengthy speeches from both Front Benches at the beginning and end of the debate.

Mr. Biffen: I accept my hon. Friend's point about speeches from the Front Benches. As Chairman of the departmental Select Committee, my hon. Friend properly reminds us of its important role in this matter. I shall consider his point about the Government motion. That can be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Committee on Safety of Medicines—our medical watchdog—has still to act on drugs which damage patients? It is slow to act in comparison with its American counterpart, the Food arid Drugs Administration. There is a suspicion that those delays are caused by secret pressures from the drug companies. Will he consider initiating a debate next week to lift the Official Secrets Act 1911 from the decisions of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, and hear i:1 mind the fact that full disclosure in the United States has worked there and should work here?

Mr. Biffen: I accept that there is a great deal of public interest in the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made. However, I have to be negative and say that I am sorry that there is simply no way in which Government time can be made available for a debate next week. Perhaps he will seek the other means that are available to Back-Bench Members to ventilate the matter.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that discussion of the Widdicombe report is now urgent in the light of the experience of the Conservative minority group on the Wolverhampton council which has been denied representation on committees equivalent to its representation on the council and yet the majority Labour group argues that that denial is lawful?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is a doughty advocate of the civic cause, and I shall look at the possibility of discussing the Widdicombe report, but I am sure that he, as a great realist in all these matters, knows perfectly well that July is not the best month in which to be finding time.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motions 992, 1018, 1019 and 1021?
[That this House condemns the arrest and detention of 3,000 youths and workers, including union general secretaries, regional organisers and shop stewards, as an attempt by the Botha Government to break the momentum of workers' struggles in South Africa, and to behead the independent, democratic trades unions of their leaders; and calls for the release of Z. Mtshelwane (South African Allied Workers' Union, Pretoria), and the following officials of the


Congress of South African Trades unions, namely, B. Najedi, Vemabantu and Mzuzani of Bloemfontein, and H. Maqua of Cape Town and all other detainees.]
[That this House condemns the imposition by the South African Government of a State of Emergency and for the widespread arrests of 3,000 youths and workers, including key trade union leaders; and calls for the release of the following members of the Metal and Allied Workers' Union (MAWU): P. Tom, organiser, Sharpeville, A. Pilane, steward, Brits, F. Mtshali, organiser, J. Moropa, organiser, H. Ebothome, shop steward, ATC, M. Lekoba, Brits, D. Tladi, organiser, Sebokenng, J. Magarne, organiser, Brits, Moroke, organiser, Brits, S. Moyo, Brits, P. Mabutsela, steward, Brits and the following members of the National Automobile and Allied Workers' Union (NAAWU): J. Lebese organiser, Mamelod, M. Shongwe, organiser, Brits, D. Hoshe, steward, Willard Batteries, S. Wilson, steward, Willard Batteries, P. Pheku, Springs and K. Dunjwa, steward, General Motors, and all other detainees.]
[That this House congratulates the Congress of South Africa Trade Unions, the youth organisations, the United Democratic Front and those other organisations for the 16th June one-day strike to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Soweto massacre in 1976; condemns the widespread police arrest of 3,000 youth and workers, the police swoops on trade union officers and the detention of many union officials; and calls for the release of the following members of the Food and Allied Workers' Union: P. Makhuda, organiser, Hammanskraal; T. Mkhanazi, branch secretary, N. Natal; M. Nhlapo, branch secretary; the following members of the Paper, Wood and Allied Workers' Union: A. Willem, organiser, Port Elizabeth; B. Mnguni, organiser, Empangeni; J. Nthilinga, organiser, N. Natal; Z. Nthimkulu, organiser, Piet Retief; the following members of the Commercial, Catering and Allied Workers' Union: K. Xulu, O. K. Bazaars, Rosebank; M. Hlongweni, O. K. Bazaars; Rosebank; A. Maletso, O. K. Bazaars, Rosebank; E. Lestwalo, Hyperama, Sandton: J. Nhlongo, organiser; O. Shebangu, Empangeni, and T. Mkaliphi, acting chairman, Chemical Workers' Industrial Union (C.W.I.U.), and L. Ntlokoa (C. W.I.U.), and all other detainees.]
[That this House condemns the state of emergency declared on Thursday 12th June in South Africa and the detention of 3,000 youths and workers in the following days congratulates COSATU, the UDF, youth and other community organisations for the solid act of defiance in the largest national strike in South Africa's history on 16th June, to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Soweto massacre; and calls for the release of the following members of the National Union of Textile Workers; O. Ngwenya, organiser, Harrismith; M. Mkhize, organiser, Harrismith; M. Kheswa, shop steward, Durban; J. Ntuli, shop steward, Durban and L. Tsotetsi; the following members of the National Union of Mineworkers: V. Bambani, regional vice-chair, Kimberley; M. Dipico, organiser, Kimberley; V. Ngcold; M. Gladli; and D. Matuembula; the following members of the Transport and General Workers' Union: E. Ngubbane, Empangeni; J. Maxambela, Port Elizabeth; and T. Mponjana; D. Khumalo, Retail and Allied Workers' Union, Mamelodi; Mathatha, Chairman, Media Workers' Association of South Africa; and the following members of

the Alexandra Action Committee: Mzwanele Mayekiso, A. Vilikazi, C. Hlatshwayo; O. Baphela of the Alexandra Youth Congress; and all other detainees.]
Those four further motions, bringing the list to over 130 key trade union leaders arrested in the past 10 days or so in South Africa.
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement next week not only from the Prime Minister on the deliberations in The Hague today, but also from the Department of Trade and Industry to discover whether they have received the report from the Ethical Investments and Research Information Services produced in the last few days which details 135 British companies, many of which have directors sitting on the Conservative Benches, including Lonrho and Pritchard Services, which are not just paying cheap wages in South Africa but less than half that set down in the weak EEC code of conduct for the minimum level of payment for black workers in South Africa?
May we have some more Government time on South Africa so that we on the Labour Benches can tell the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) that if he thinks that South Africa is such a wonderful place it is a wonder and a pity that he does not go to live there?

Mr. Biffen: If the hon. Gentleman is going to make such a free and easy accusation and add a certain amount of personal animus to it, he must not expect Government time to be provided: he must seek it on his own account.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Leader of the House consider what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy said today about the need for a nuclear policy? Will he, please, provide time as soon as possible for the House to consider the extent of that need? He will remember that the debate on 13 May was limited to the environmental aspects of nuclear energy and we now want to consider the energy requirements.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes an extremely fair point, but, as a realist and sometime incumbent of the Whips Office, he will know that July is an extremely difficult month in which to find time for more general debates, but I shall bear in mind what he has said.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Why does the Leader of the House treat the House with such contempt and arrogance with regard to the Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which is one of the most important Bills this Session—some of us would say the most important? Surely it deserves a full day of Government time so that most hon. Members who have an interest in the matter can take part in a vote on it? Otherwise, it might well mean a vote coming in the small hours of the morning, which may suit some of us, but will not be to the convenience of hon. Members Generally.

Mr. Biffen: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and I am not insensitive to it, but I cannot go further than what I have said to the Leader of the Opposition.

Sir Ian Percival: Has my right hon. Friend observed early-day motion 991 relating to the penalties available to those convicted of acts of terrorism which has in a short time attracted the support of no fewer than 116 of my right hon. and hon. Friends, representing a wide cross-section of our party, some of whom are well know to have been against the death penalty until now?
[That this House congratulates and thanks all those whose efforts played a part in securing the conviction of the Brighton bomber on charges of murdering five people and of those who so recently pleaded guilty in Belfast to murdering 17 people; extends its heartfelt sympathy to all who suffered loss or injury from their acts; asks itself whether there is available in such cases any penalty such as will in any sense meet the crime and whether in permitting the law as to penalties to remain as it is, it is doing sufficient to protect those who may he the next victims of such appalling evil; is of the opinion that it should give fresh consideration to extending the death penalty, now limited to treason and piracy, to criminal acts such as those done to terrorise; and asks the Leader of the House to arrange for it to have time to debate these matters.]
Does he appreciate that many of our constituents will find it difficult to understand our priorities if we cannot even find time to discuss whether the death penalty should be available in the context of the appalling developments in international terrorism? Will he find time for such discussion?

Mr. Biffen: Of course, I understand the problem, but my right hon. and learned Friend will also concede that the matter has already been debated in this Session of Parliament. However, there is simply no way in which I can hold out the prospect of easy Government time during July.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the procedures for investigating alleged disciplinary offences against policemen so that we may have an opportunity to discuss the disgraceful public trial of the deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester and the way in which innuendo and rumour have been gaining currency when he has had no opportunity to defend himself or to state his case? Whatever he may or may not have done, he is entitled to an impartial, objective investigation, and, if necessary, a fair trial. Is it not now appropriate for the House to debate those matters?

Mr. Biffen: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the matter has already been raised this afternoon by the Leader of the Liberal party, and I would prefer to rest my reply on the answer that I gave him.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: As the shop steward of the House, can my right hon. Friend do something about the vile smell, the disgusting rubbish and the danger to the public presented at one of the accesses to the precincts of the House underneath Bridge street? It has been there for some time and the authorities have not done anything about it over many years. There is an enormous amount of support for the view that something should be done. Can my right hon. Friend offer any help?

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked a question on which I can offer some help. I shall consider the point and see if something can be done.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I should like to reinforce the request by the Leader of the Liberal party for time to debate what is now known as the Stalker affair. On three occasions in the past three weeks I have tried to raise this matter. May I reinforce those requests by pointing out that there is grave anxiety in Northern Ireland about this man's dismissal from the inquiry that he was professionally carrying out? I respectfully suggest

that if an inquiry was taking place into policing in Greater London or Greater Manchester a ministerial statement would have been made long ago.

Mr. Biffen: It would be improper for me to comment upon the circumstances of the inquiry, and for that reason I shall not respond to that part of the question of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I shall add his voice to the other representations made on this matter and report his view to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. Friend make time before the summer recess for a debate on the Peacock report and upon bias in the BBC? Does he accept the urgent need for such a debate, bearing in mind the latest example, the spurious report by the Low Pay Unit which qualifies for only one column inch on an inside page of The Guardian today but which was featured as, I think, the third item on the BBC television news last night?

Mr. Biffen: I take account of what my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) says. He knows that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has already shown an interest in this matter. I shall see that the views are conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will recall early-day motion 770 in the last Session about the import of South African coal through the port of Liverpool. It was supported by 97 hon. Members.
[That this House condemns the Banbury Coal Company of Northwick for importing domestic coal for the Lancashire area from South Africa through Liverpool Docks; regrets that the company is prepared to put at risk Lancashire mines and Lancashire jobs in favour of supporting economically the evil apartheid regime in South Africa; further regrets the special arrangements made with the company by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company for handling this cargo which could lead to unrest amongst Liverpool dockers; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Energy to show his much vaunted support for the United Kingdom mining industry by seeking to prevent such unnecessary imports.]
He will have seen on today's Order Paper early-day motion 1007 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) which is supported by 40 hon. Members.
[That this House deplores the continuing importation into the United Kingdom of 30,000 tons of cheap South African coal each month; regards this as deplorable when the National Coal Board has plans to axe a further 24,000 jobs in the coal mining industry; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ban these imports.]
May we have a ban on the unnecessary import of coal from South Africa which further threatens miners' jobs?

Mr. Biffen: A statement on the general question of United Kingdom policy in the context of South Africa will almost certainly be made on Tuesday. I suggest that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) tries his luck then.

Mr. Cecil Franks: I fully understand the difficulty facing my right hon. Friend about arranging a debate while the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester is being pursued. However, I should


like to add my voice to those of hon. Members who have requested that when the inquiry has been concluded and hopefully that will be soon—he will consider the possibility of an early debate thereafter about all the circumstances of this most bizarre situation.

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the considerable interest that my hon. Friend has taken in this affair. I shall report his views to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is yet another aspect to the Stalker inquiry, which is that of allegations of shoot to kill by British forces in Northern Ireland and covert cross-border incursions into the Irish Republic by British forces in Northern Ireland? These are matters of grave concern in Dublin—we understand that they will be the subject of exchanges between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach tomorrow—and in the House. Is it not time that the Leader of the House provided an opportunity for hon. Members to discuss how the Government allowed the inquiry to become enveloped in fumblings and misinformation and, apparently in murkiness?

Mr. Biffen: I take account of what the hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, I cannot respond by commenting upon the matter as it is now the subject of an inquiry. In all these matters I can best carry out the undertaking that I gave to the Leader of the Liberal party.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Can my right hon. Friend shed any light on the extrordinary inability of the Selection Committee to find any member of the so-called alliance who is willing to serve on the Select Committee that is to consider the Channel Tunnel Bill?

Mr. Biffen: I can safely say that that is quite without my responsibility.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Does the Leader of the House recall earlier efforts to persuade him that the House should debate the serious matter of extraterritoriality? Does he realise that Anglo-American relations are being soured still further by the efforts of the United States Administration to impinge upon our sovereignty? Does he recognise that it is time that we had a debate on this extremely serious subject?

Mr. Biffen: I understand the hon. Gentleman's arguments, and I shall refer them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. John Stokes: As the Defence Estimates are to be discussed next week, can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence be asked to refer to the defence implications of the present situation in South Africa, in view of the danger that there will not always be a Government of that country favourable to the West and of the vital importance of the sea routes round the Cape and the valuable minerals in that part of the world and of the fear that after these troubles there might be a Communist Government in that country?

Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is made aware of my hon. Friend's anxieties.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Has the Leader of the House heard from the Patronage

Secretary, to whom has been reported the great concern of the grain trade about the administrative chaos that will follow the introduction of the co-responsibility levy on cereals? Will he seek to enable the House to debate this appalling proposal before it becomes effective on 3July?

Mr. Biffen: I am well aware, from a constituency interest, of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I shall certainly look into the matter further.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: May we have a debate on the curious anomaly that in every case where an ex-service man has been appointed to the public service after the war he receives the extra war service credit on his pension, except where his public service was overseas? Would it not be useful if we had a debate upon this anomaly so that the Government might remedy this injustice?

Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that anomaly, of which I was not entirely aware. I suggest that he might use all the scope that is offered in private Members' time to raise the matter. I must be candid and say that I do not think that there is very much opportunity for Government time to be made available to debate the issue.

Mr. Frank Cook: I ask the Leader of the House to call to mind his response to me last week at about this time when I referred to the attempt by his hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), to criticise the BBC "Panorama" programme and the possible response to the rebuttal which I had published. The right hon. Gentleman responded by saying in effect, wait and see. Since then I have not even received an acknowledgement. As the summer recess is so imminent, is it the Government's intention to allow their response to go into the shadows of the recess in the same way that their publication of the new ionising regulations was kept quiet last year by publishing them on 4 September?

Mr. Biffen: In a mood of optimism, I hoped last week that this was a self-solving difficulty, but apparently it is not. I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Nigel Forman: May I associate myself with the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), and urge my right hon. Friend to seek to find time in the near future for a wide-ranging debate on the future of nuclear energy? It is important that all points of view be expressed.

Mr. Biffen: Yes, of course. I have to say to my hon. Friend that July is a bad time for the finding of Government time, but I think that he is right in saying that nuclear energy is a matter of great political importance.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity today to read an article in the Financial Times by Richard Evans that states that water authority debts may be written off? If that happens before privatisation, £5 billion will be handed to the Government's friends in the City rather than being used to build houses, hospitals and schools and to create jobs in areas of high unemployment. It seems that a £27 billion industry is to be sold off for £5 billion to £7 billion. Is there no financial limit to the price that the Government will pay to achieve their political objectives? Quite rightly,


and for good reason, Mr. Speaker turned down a PNQ application from me today, but as a consequence of that I ask the Leader of the House, to assure us that a statement will be made very shortly on this important matter.

Mr. Biffen: I think that there may be a case for saying that a statement is needed to correct that string of misconceptions. On the other hand, I do not travel too hopefully along that course. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the fears and anxieties that have been expressed.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in next Thursday's debate we shall be able to discuss the conclusion of the Public Accounts Committee in its eleventh report that the Committee was gravely disquieted by the decision to set up a joint services defence school of music, and to ask the House to endorse the view of 164 of my right hon. and hon. Friends expressed in early-day motion No. 397 that the training of British Army bands, with their high standard of excellence, should long continue to remain at Kneller hall Twickenham?
[That this House pays tribute to the high standards of excellence of the bands of the Army trained at Kneller Hall, Twickenham, the Royal Marines trained at Deal, and the Royal Air Force trained at Uxbridge, all of which add splendour to Royal and state occasions, promote recruiting and morale, lift the spirits of the nation, and as part of the traditional British scene, help to attract to British shores visitors whose spending generates income, employment and a tax yield to Her Majesty's Government; takes note of the Eleventh Report of the Public Accounts Committee which expresses grave disquiet that the Ministry of Defence should have decided on a joint Defence School of Music which would disrupt the training of service musicians and entail expenditure of £10 million before carrying out a full investment appraisal, and recommends that the Ministry of Defence should review the need for a Defence School of Music, as well is its possible location; thanks the Right honourable Lady the Prime Minister for her reply on 6th February to the honourable Member for Twickenham that the new Secretary of State will look at the matter afresh in the light of the latest facts; and hopes that hand training will long continue to flourish at Kneller Hall, Twickenham, at Deal and at Uxbridge, respectively.]

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has been a successful campaigner in this matter and we all envy him his success. I am sure that the debate next week will give him a chance to advance further the arguments that he has in mind in what is, in its own way, a real and political issue.

Mr. Greville Janner: Can the House expect a statement before 8 July, when Kurt Waldheim is expected to he inaugurated as president of Austria, concerning his involvement in the interrogation and subsequent fate of British prisoners of war? As it is difficult to come to any proper conclusion without the evidence which the Germans have so far refused to reveal concerning his activities, will Her Majesty's Government take the opportunity of the most welcome visit of President von Weizsäcker, the President of Germany, to ask him whether as a gesture of good will he will show them? Will the Government at the same time ask the United Nations to reveal its files, which show why the

United Kingdom voted against and vetoed the appointment of Waldheim as Secretary-General the first time round?

Mr. Biffen: I shall see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is made aware of the hon. and learned Gentleman's views.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: As there is grave concern in the motor trade about the Government's original proposals to alter the month when the new registration suffix is introduced from August to October, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been good enough to say that he will reconsider this decision, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ask our right hon. Friend to make a statement before the summer recess? There is considerable uncertainty which is doing great damage in the motor trade.

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxieties, which I think are widely held. I shall most certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to this difficulty.

Mr. Max Madden: In view of the string of defeats which the Government have suffered in another place, will the Leader of the House appreciate that we can well understand why the Government seem to be planning to send the House of Lords into outer space? As Mr. Bernard Ingham seems to have told the Lobby this week that the Government are planning to respond to the latest defeats that they have suffered during the passage of the Social Security Bill through another place, when is the Leader of the House planning to tell this place of the Government's intentions in respect of those defeats?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), as an experienced parliamentarian, will be aware that there is a strong convention that legislation which is before the other place is not the subject of statements here. All will be revealed in due course.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have an early debate on the need to protect the interests of children against Labour authorities such as Ealing which is putting children for adoption with gays and lesbians — [Interruption.] Labour Members may think that this is funny, but I have a large mailbag of objections to it and every day, I am receiving deputations about it from parents and citizens. It is a serious matter.
The authority is inviting teachers to apply for posts in schools regardless of their "sexual orientation". Advertisements have been put in the Church Times and The Universe without the permission of the governors who have the responsibility for making the appointments. In view of the extreme damage that Labour authority appointments—as in Ealing—of sexual deviants or even paedophiles as guardians, foster parents and teachers could cause, is it not important that there should be an early debate on this important matter?

Mr. Biffen: I quite understand that my hon. Friend feels that this is a matter which should receive much wider public recognition. Therefore, I suggest that, at least in the first instance, he should see whether he could do well with an Adjournment debate on it.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the event of the motion, which was on the Order Paper for 6 June, not


being chosen by the winner of the ballot for 14 July, what opportunity will the House have to consider the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs of 1–2 May 1982, which was published last July and on which the Leader of the House gave an undertaking to the Leader of the Opposition?
If the motion of 6 June is not chosen, will there be an opportunity for a statement to be made on question 9? That concerns the relationship between the Prime Minister and her Law Officers. They were set up to write a letter, then, finding that she blamed the civil servants and her Trade Secretary when things went wrong, there was an inquiry into something which she herself had instigated.

Mr. Biffen: With all affection for the hon. Gentleman, I must say that I think that we have debated this several times over. I do not think my answer would add materially to his sum total of knowledge. I understand his point about the Select Committee report. That is something I will consider.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend share my continuing concern about the high rate of acquittals in jury trials, especially in Snaresbrook, with a 58 per cent. acquittal rate? Does he agree that we ought to have an opportunity to debate the rules and role of people who come forward to be jurymen? They need to take morality and loyalty tests and they must believe in punishment which is fitting to the crime. They should also be loyal to the Crown. Surely jurors should be totally representative of the whole of society rather than sometimes—because of defence counsel—only part of it.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point; it must concern all law-abiding citizens. I hope that my hon. Friend will carry on campaigning in the way that he does, even though he occasionally runs the risk of misunderstanding.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that there were quite a number of Home Office questions today on the matter of the Birmingham pub bombings of 1974? Is he aware of the growing concern about whether the six people in gaol took part in this crime? Shortly, a book is to be published which suggests that that is not the case. Is he aware that recently on Granada television the forensic evidence of the Home Office scientist, Dr. Frank Skuse, totally collapsed? Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Home Secretary with a view to his making a statement in the House? This concerns not just Labour Members; at least one Tory Member has shown anxiety about it.
When the Leader of the House gets hold of the Home Secretary, will he also tell him that several weeks ago I sent him a letter about the imprisoned Kent miner, Terry French, but I have not had a reply. We want this lad's parole to be reviewed as urgently as possible.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman said that, to some extent, his points were all raised at Question time this afternoon—

Mr. Skinner: No, they were not.

Mr. Biffen: I am sorry; it happens to us all from time to time. I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's

attention to the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. In a sense I will be a substitute for the question he was unable to ask.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the orders, conventions and procedures of this House, and, in particular, will he embrace within that debate the need for right hon. Gentlemen, representing minority parties, to accept and understand the meaning of open questions? Back Benchers who regularly come to the House are often disadvantaged by the actions of right hon. Gentlemen who fail to recognise the way in which this House proceeds.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend must remember that the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party are going through a certain passing difficulty. This is a great place for charity, and this is a time when one should show rather more charity than my hon. Friend has exhibited.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Leader of the House has followed the affair of Jim Smith and Aish and company. Is he aware that a new whistle blower concerning excess profits from defence contracts has surfaced? His name is Mr. Don Pitman, a former employee of Thorn EMI, Portsmouth. He maintains that his company was also fiddling the books. Within the next couple of weeks may we have a full statement from the Dispatch Box on this matter? Can the Leader to the House assure me that the fullest possible inquiries will take place within the Ministry of Defence as to why Department officials were able so effectively to cover up what this man reported?

Mr. Biffen: I think that the hon. Gentleman's most immediate and rather engaging prospect would be to make his speech in the two days that will be devoted to defence Estimates. I can think of no better time.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Is the Leader of the House aware that millions of disabled people who have found their standard of living eroded by the Government now see a glimmer of hope in the two decisions made in the other place against the Government's Social Security Bill? They understand from the rumours from Bernard Ingham's office that the Government are not willing to abide by that decision. Is it not therefore an opportune moment for a statement to be made to the House by the Secretary of State for Social Services as a prelude to a full scale debate—we have not had one for a year—on the plight of the disabled under the Government?

Mr. Biffen: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but he is aware that the matter has recently been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I do not think I can fairly go beyond what I have already said.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I wish him a happy birthday.

Mr. David Winnick: Perhaps I should say that it is also South Africa freedom day and it would be proper to debate South Africa.
In view of the ugly scenes which took place after Question Time, to some extent arising from the remarks made by the Leader of the House, will the Government give careful consideration to appointing an eminent


persons' group to look into the dfferences between the Liberals and the SDP in order to try to resolve those differences?

Mr. Biffen: It is quite simple. They are putting themselves into a state of disarray which will make them the natural partners of the Labour party.

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Drainage Rates (Disabled Persons) Act 1986.
2. Corneal Tissue Act 1986.
3. British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Act 1986.
4. Horticultural Produce Act 1986.
5. Armed Forces Act 1986.
6. Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986.
7. Safety at Sea Act 1986.
8. Health Service Joint Consultative Committees (Access to Information) Act 1986.
9. Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1986.
10. Land Registration Act 1986.

Orders of the Day — European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee, [Progress, 16 June.]

MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair

Sir Russell Johnston: On a point of order. Mr. Walker. You may remember that at our first sitting the Minister intervened and the Government moved the closure before many hon. Members had had an opportunity to speak. Have you had any discussions with the Government about their intentions or any intimation from them with a view to protecting the rights of minority parties and of Back Benchers?

The Chairman: I have received no such representations. It is the Committee that decides whether a debate should be brought to a conclusion.

Mr. Eric Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I wish to raise four points of order, and it may be for your convenience and that of hon. Members if I raise them one by one, in case any hon. Member wishes to intervene.
First, I thank you for removing amendments Nos. 23 and 25 from the first group of amendments and for putting them into a grouping into which they fall more naturally. As a result, the Committee will be able to have a more coherent debate. You may well be aware, Mr. Walker, that two of the subjects put together, although analogous, are also important in their own right. When we reach that group of amendments, which involve economic and monetary union as well as political union, will you bear in mind that some of us may wish to raise detailed points on both subjects? I hope that you will take that into account when deciding whether to accept a closure motion on that debate.

Mr. Chairman: I am not sure whether that was a point of order or prior notice of what may happen. At the relevant time I shall take into account the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deakins: My second point of order relates to the first group of amendments, as it now stands. Two subjects are involved. The first subject covers the new power of the Assembly, and amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 13. The second subject involves clause 3 and among other things the change of name from Assembly to Parliament, and affects amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 42 to 45. Although those amendments are all related to the Assembly, I hope that due consideration will he given tÓ the fact that they represent important subjects in their own right.
Many of us would have liked to go into each subject in some detail. However, we understand that there is a feeling in the Committee that there should be a reasonably early vote on this important group of amendments. Consequently, I hope that our restraint and self-denying ordinance during the first debate will be taken into account during later debates. There are many things to be said on the first group of amendments, but they will go unsaid because of the relative shortage of time.
For example, I was going to raise the whole issue of financial control by the Assembly during the debate on the

first group of amendments. However, I have decided not to do so then, as there is a desire in all parts of the Committee for an early vote. I shall thus try to introduce it at a later stage, subject to your discretion.
May we have a separate vote on amendment No. 13, which relates to the new power of the Assembly to interfere in and approve international agreements concluded by the European Communities? The Assembly does not enjoy that power at present, and it impinges on the royal prerogative. Given the importance of the royal prerogative, will the Committee be allowed to express its opinion through a separate vote?

The Chairman: At the appropriate time, I shall take into account the hon. Gentleman's representations.

Mr. Deakins: I wrote to you, and gave you notice of my third point of order, Mr. Walker. Amendment No. 26 relates to title III of the Single European Act, which concerns co-operation and the co-ordination of foreign policy in pursuit of a common foreign policy among the 12 member states of the EEC. I pointed out to you that on 7 May the Minister of State gave evidence before the Foreign Affairs Committee. When challenged by members of that Committee, the hon. Lady indicated that she would have favoured a debate on the issue of political co-operation. At present, you have chosen, in your wisdom, Mr. Walker, not to select amendment No. 26 or any of the two or three other, similar amendments. However, given the Minister's concern that there should he a debate, and my submission now, perhaps it will be possible to reconsider the matter, if not now, later in our proceedings.
If you rule that that is not in order, Mr. Walker, I am prepared to develop the argument. I would submit that the amendment is in order, and I would welcome an opportunity of raising a point relating to the contents of the documents before us, suggesting that that is so.

Mr. George Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. I very much appreciate the way in which you have treated the representations made to you about the selection of amendments. We are all extremely grateful to you for your perception.
However, I seek your guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) has made a valid point. One of the most significant parts of the Single European Act is title III, which is entitled:
Treaty provisions on European Co-operation in the Sphere of Foreign Policy".
There are many provisions in article 30 that are of enormous consequence for the future conduct of Britain's foreign policy. The Heads of Government are meeting today in The Hague, and they will spend most of their time considering a major issue of foreign policy — South Africa. We are only too well aware that, although the EEC might want to keep such a provision outside the precise terms of the treaty, the reality is that events will dictate what happens. If Heads of Government are spending so much time debating the provisions which we have already agreed and which the Minister of State signed in Luxembourg earlier this year, how can hon. Members have an opportunity to debate the implications of that part of the Single European Act which is probably of more consequence than any other part?

The Chairman: As the hon. Gentleman fairly recognised. I gave very careful consideration to all the many representations made to me during the past few


days. I have tried as hard as possible to be fair to hon. Members in all parts of the House. However, I came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to accept that amendment. When we debate clause stand part, the Chair may be able to recognise the interest expressed in those points.

Mr. Deakins: You have anticipated my fourth point of order, Mr. Walker. I was going to point out that there are several other amendments that have also not been chosen. I entirely accept your ruling on such matters. However, there is to be no debate on social policy, on social and economic cohesion, or on research and technology. All those subjects are relatively important and are considered as such in Brussels and elsewhere. Consequently, I was hoping that you would take into account the fact that there had been no separate debates on those subjects, when considering whether there should be a debate on clause I stand part.

The Chairman: I have heard what has been said and the Chair will take it into account when we reach that point in our proceedings. I shall, of course, have regard to the scope of any debate that precedes it.
Attention has been drawn to the fact that the selection of amendments before the House last week has been revised. Hon. Members may be pleased to know that I have sought to take into account all the representations made, including those made about the possibility of a debate on clause 2 stand part. It would be proper to allow such a debate when we reach that point.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I join my colleagues in thanking you for the changes that have been made and endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) on clause 1 stand part and in view of the wide ambit of subjects that have been agreed in the matter of closure.
My point relates to Standing Orders Nos. 28 and 29 in relation to the moving of a dilatory motion. Standing Order No. 29 says that the Question on a dilatory motion may be put at once, or may not he put, by the Chair in the event of the issue being an abuse of the rules of the House.
I hope, Mr. Walker, that I would never knowingly be guilty of such an abuse. I therefore seek your permission to move, That the Committee do report progress and ask leave to sit again. I do not want to trespass on to the substance of the matter, in the expectation that you will accept the motion.
On 17 June last the Minister of State, Treasury signed a memorandum for the House and for the public which stated in effect that the Commission of the European Communities, at its meeting on 22 May last year, had proposed a supplementary budget to the EEC which amounted to extending expenditure for the current year up to the limit of the so-called 1·4 per cent. VAT ceiling.
Paragraph 7 of the memorandum says:
Adoption of the preliminary draft supplementary and amending budget No. 1 as presented by the Commission would exhaust the own resources available within the 1·4 per cent. VAT ceiling.
Paragraph 2 states that the proposal will be considered by the Council of Ministers at the 16–17 July Budget Council.
While I do not wish to go further into the merits of that, I would commend that not only is this proposed extension

of expenditure — it may not be accepted — of considerable importance in relation to what we are about to discuss, but, the 1·4 per cent. VAT ceiling having been reached, the Fontainebleau arrangement for rebate, which has been a strong feature of debates and, indeed, of the Government's case, would fall and our relationships with the EEC would therefore be of a wholly different character and nature from that envisaged were the document not available.
The memorandum was not available in the House until, at the earliest, yesterday, and in effect today. The substantive document, which of course we would not have known about, was sent from Brussels to the Government as long ago as 22 May.
I seek to move the adjournment of the Committee, if briefly, to give the Minister an opportunity to reply to many of the financial points which arise, which have not been made very clearly in the Government's financial memorandum and which, I submit, will change the atmosphere in which our debates on the Bill will take place.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker.
On 23 June, which was only Tuesday this week, the Minister of State, Treasury in a parliamentary answer stated that the highest rate of VAT contribution for 1986 was 1·22 per cent. I have this morning received a paper from the European Commission, document 71161/86, in which the words are used:
own resources within the 1·4 VAT limit are insufficient to cover all requirements.
In other words, the Government are saying that 1·22 per cent. is adequate for all contingencies, while the Commission is saying that the Common Market is in effect insolvent and does not have the money to pay for the things that it has agreed to do this year.
One may ask, is this not a wholly separate issue from the Bill? I think you will be aware, Mr. Walker, that two of the clauses deal specifically with the participation of the European Assembly and the Council of Ministers in budgetary matters. I am wondering whether it would be more helpful to the House, before we deal with the two specific articles concerning budgetary matters, to clarify whether the Government are right in saying that there is plenty of room for extra spending this year above 1·22 per cent. or whether the European Commission in its document—an official Community document signed by Commissioner Christophersen—is correct in saying that the Community is in effect insolvent and does not have, even on maximum resources, the money to pay its basic bills for this year.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. The Bill is being put forward as part of our total relationship with the European Community. As part of that total relationship, various negotiations took place and various agreements were made about the level of rebate and therefore the level of net cost contribution that the United Kingdom would make towards the Community. In view of what my hon. Friend has just said, there is a real prospect that that net contribution — the amount of money that the British taxpayer will have to pay net to the Community—will be significantly greater than anticipated.
The British people would be appalled if we were to continue the debate without their first knowing what


commitment we are making on their behalf in financial terms, as the Bill is part of the general arrangement that balances out the financial contribution that we intend to make.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for having given me notice of his intention to raise this matter.
I have listened carefully to what has been said. It seems to me that the matters that have been raised have no bearing on the content of the Bill. Certainly they may be matters for the Committee to take into account in reaching its conclusions. I do not think that they provide any substance for my accepting a motion such as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman, and I cannot accept such a motion.

Clause 1

EXTENDED MEANING OF "THE TREATIES" AND "THE COMMUNITY TREATIES"

Sir Edward du Cann: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 13, after `Communities)', insert
`but not Articles 6 and 7 thereof'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1, line 13, after `Communities)', insert `but not Article 8 thereof'.
No. 13, in page 1, line 13, after `Communities)', insert `but not Article 9 thereof'.
No. 51, in clause 3, page 2, line 22, leave out paragraph (a).
No. 52, in clause 3, page 2, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).
No. 42, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, leave out from `below' to 'but' in line 33.
No. 43, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 41.
No. 44, in clause 3, page 2, line 34, leave out paragraph (a).
No. 45, in clause 3, page 3, line I, leave out sub-section (3).

Sir Edward du Cann: Before I deal with the substance of the amendment, I should like to make a short reference to the exchanges that have taken place in respect of points of order on the timetable for our discussion.
The title of the measure that we are now discussing in some detail—European Communities (Amendment) Bill· is wholly misleading. The Bill, if Parliament in its wisdom decides to enact it, gives effect to an international agreement, the Single European Act, which is a new treaty, and at least equal in significance to the original treaty of Rome. That measure is of supreme constitutional importance. It is a great step towards the creation of a European super-state and of a European political union. The outstanding thing, the regrettable thing, is that this Single European Act has never been discussed in either House of the British Parliament.
I do not comment on whether the treaty is desirable or undesirable. I say only that any attempt to suggest that the

Bill is a minor matter and exists merely in order to facilitate the workings of the Common Market would be a confidence trick.
I think that Opposition Members and my hon. Friends who have spoken publicly in the Chamber and privately to you, Mr. Walker, and to the Leader of the House and to the Patronage Secretary requesting that adequate time should he taken to discuss this measure have not only right but common sense on their side.
If we take the separate subjects for debate — the harmonisation of taxation, the common agricultural policy, European union, the powers of the European Parliament and other subjects which, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) said, we shall probably not have an opportunity to discuss — each of those subjects alone requires a whole day at least for proper discussion. Therefore, it is appropriate to say that it is good that the representations on this subject — not through the usual channels but through unusual channels —have been heeded.
Whatever our views on the European Community may be, none of us wishes to delay the debate, or to prolong it unnecessarily, or to impede sensible legislation, but it is entirely appropriate that Back Benchers should demand adequate time in which to bring into the open the realities. They need to be fully discussed in this Chamber. The great British public needs to be made fully aware of the realities and their implications.
As for amendment No. 2, in a nutshell the Bill gives additional powers to the European Parliament to influence decisions of the European Community. Already there is great controversy about the extent of the increase in those powers. I shall not cite the references; right hon. and hon. Members are well aware of them. However, in my experience unclear law is always bad law. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), the Minister of State, will make a very clear statement about the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. First, what will happen? Secondly, what will occur in practice? Thirdly, in the event of a dispute between the Commission and the Assembly, who is to be the arbiter? I am sure that, like me, every other right hon. and hon. Member has observed that the Members of the Euro-Assembly are now hungry for power and authority.
Individual Members of the Assembly have already stated that they will exploit these new powers to the fullest possible extent. What individuals say is one thing, but what the Assembly has said collectively is pretty remarkable. The Assembly has collectively expressed the view that it will exploit the new powers to the fullest extent. Indeed, such a decision was made formally by the Assembly in a resolution that was passed by 206 votes to 63 on 16 January 1986.
In case you, Mr. Walker, or anybody else should think that 63 elected representatives were not prepared to go quite so fast as the 206 who formed the majority, let me stress that the 63 who voted against did not vote against the sentiment — quite the reverse. They expressed their distress about what they saw as the inadequacy of the new powers in the Single European Act. The text is available and the writing is very clearly on the wall. If right hon. and hon. Members do not care for the graffiti on the wall, they can see the text in the Library of the House of Commons.

Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend has been telling the House very eloquently that the significance of this


monumental piece of legislation is not yet sufficiently recognised. I remind him of a judgment earlier this week in the European Court of Justice. Effectively, it requires Her Majesty's Government to make social payments to various categories of the population. Years ago, when the original European Communities Act was introduced and when various debates took place and a referendum campaign was held, nobody suggested for a moment that an impost of this kind would he placed upon Her Majesty's Government by an institution such as this. Things will happen as the years unwind that at this stage nobody is able to imagine. The result will be a massive reduction in our sovereignty.

Sir Edward du Cann: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point that I wanted to make to the House next and for putting it so clearly.
Hitherto, the Assembly has been chiefly an advisory body. When the question of our signing the treaty of Rome was widely discussed in the country during the referendum, it was never suggested that the Assembly would be other than an advisory body. Now, however, its function is about to change, and change dramatically. If the amendment is not carried and the Bill is passed in its present form, the Assembly will be able to block Council proposals, unless the Council disagrees unanimously with its views. It is obvious to anybody who knows anything about the way in which the European Community now operates that that is extremely unlikely.
The chances of achieving unanimity are the slenderest ever. There are now 12 members of the Community, including Italy. That country favours extra-parliamentary powers. It always has done and it makes no secret of its views. And, as everyone knows, it rarely disagrees with the Council. If the Council wants to get legislation through there will be immense pressure on it to accommodate the views of the European Parliament. Whether we like it or not, whether people know about it or not, the European Parliament will take immense new authority. Part of the reason for moving the amendment is to make that point absolutely clear to our fellow countrymen and countrywomen.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend not think that there is a rather sad irony in the fact that a new democracy such as Italy should be so keen on providing the European Community with an effective parliamentary constitution but that apparently this country, the mother of Parliaments, should be so reluctant to do so?

Sir Edward du Cann: It is legitimate to hold another point of view. We have evolved our style of parliamentary democracy over the centuries. There is not one hon. Member who is privileged to serve in this House who is not immensely proud of it and who wants to make his contribution in his own way to its effective working and, as time moves on, to its enhancement. Not every European country has the same proud parliamentary tradition of democracy. I prefer to defend what we have rather than to embark too early upon a new and untried experiment in which we shall have only a minority interest. The proposal is that the authority of the European Assembly should be greatly increased. In effect, it follows that there must be an equivalent decrease of the authority of United

Kingdom Ministers. It follows, too, that equally there must be a decrease in the authority of United Kingdom parliamentarians from whom Ministers are selected and to whom hitherto they have been answerable. My view, for what it is worth, is that that is unacceptable at this stage in the European Community's development.
The purpose of the amendment is to exclude these proposals from United Kingdom law and thereby to continue to preserve, or to attempt to preserve, the sovereignty of this Parliament. I repeat what I said earlier in a different context. At no time has the proposal to increase the powers of the European Assembly been put to the United Kingdom electorate. If that were done and if the answer were in the affirmative, I might be content. That has not been done, and as it has not been done I cannot be content.
It is absurd that this Bill should be sold to the community— by which I mean this country's community —as a simple tidying measure. This proposal represents a most significant constitutional change. If this choice were put squarely to the electorate of this country, I doubt very much whether they would be in favour of it. The electorate may like to make jokes about us and about their Parliament — that is their right, their privilege and their freedom — but they probably prefer to keep what they have rather than to embark on a new experiment. Therefore, at this time I think it is right to refuse to sanction this part of the Bill.

Mr. George Foulkes: As a signatory of the amendment, may I say on behalf of the official Opposition that we support the amendment. If the Government are not prepared to accept it, we shall divide the House.
I must say to the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) that the demand for adequate time to discuss this matter comes not only from the Back Benchers on both sides of the House, but from the Labour Front Bench.
Like the right hon. Member for Taunton, the Opposition believe that this group of amendments, and amendment No. 2 in particular, brings us to the key issue of the Bill. It is of serious concern to the Opposition. We are not just talking, as the phraseology of Europe would have us believe, about co-operation between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. We are talking of cold decision-making by the European Parliament. This measure represents a substantial change, which must not be under-estimated.
The change may not be enough for the European Parliament. The right hon. Member for Taunton called its Members power-hungry. It is understandable that they have this wish to increase their power, but it is also right for us to examine the effect of the measure, if implemented, on our powers as a democratically elected institution.
The European Parliament may have said in resolutions that were adopted on 16 January that that was only modest progress towards its aims. We disagree with that view because we regard it as a significant transfer of power, from Westminster, to Strasbourg as well as Brussels. That is why we oppose it.

Mr. Marlow: I am sorry to intervene so early in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Can he tell the House at this stage, if a Labour Government were to be elected, whether they would repeal the Bill?

Mr. Foulkes: That is something that we would have to take account of when—not if—a Labour Government was elected. It would depend on how circumstances changed before then.
The changes proposed diminish the powers of Westminster in four ways, which I shall outline to the House. First, scrutiny by the House of Commons will be even more difficult than it is now. We accept—indeed, I believe that even the Government accept—that scrutiny is not good at present. The Government accepted the Opposition's amendment on 4 March and promised improvements. But the Government's response so far to the improvements in scrutiny that the House — not just the Opposition—demanded has been inadequate so far.
Secondly, the power of the Council will be reduced and circumscribed. As Minsters are also responsible to Parliament, that factor would reduce our powers in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
Thirdly, the opportunity to veto by the United Kingdom Government, or the power to block, will be greatly reduced. We shall discuss later the areas where the decisions now carried out by unanimous agreement of the Council will be changed to a qualified majority. Suffice it to say that at present the Luxembourg compromise, which we have never accepted as legally binding but which has been effective up to now with one or two exceptions, will become less effective.
The fourth way in which our power is being diminished is that the compromise will be much more difficult because of the second stage in decision-making. This is not just the view of the Opposition, although I am stating it on behalf of the Opposition. The Government recognise this and they were strongly opposed at first to the changes that they now advocate in the Bill. The Bill represents a humiliating climbdown by the Government.
To answer the question put by the right hon. Member for Taunton, it is no wonder that the Government want to keep the issue, as well as this debate, low key. It is embarrassing for them to climb down in this way.
In the Dooge report, the then Minister of State who has been promoted to be Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), insisted, along with the Greek Government, on a reservation on this matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as it says in the report,
entered a reservation on this section. He considers that the European Parliament should he encouraged, within its Treaty powers, to make more effective contributions to Community decision-making. The Parliament should make more use of its right to put forward proposals for Community action. The Council should follow up resolutions with the Parliament, or explain its reasons for not doing so. There should be improvement and extension of the conciliation procedure, in particular by more effective consultation between the Council and the Parliament at earlier stages of the consideration of proposals.
That was as far as the Government would go. They insisted on that reservation being included, but they were clearly and firmly against co-decision-making. The Prime Minister herself was against any intergovernmental conference even to discuss and consider the matter, yet all the proposals in Dooge, except powers in relation to revenue-raising, have been adopted by the Government and are advocated by the successor to the right hon. and learned Member for Pentlands, by the hon. Member for Wallesey (Mrs. Chalker).
As those of my hon. and right hon. Friends who are members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee will

know only too well, these institutional and procedural changes embodied in the Single European Act go further than the Government had proposed at first. They will have a significant effect on the operation of most of the Community's institutions.
The Opposition believe that the Government's first response was correct and that we should examine the implications in more detail, especially in relation to scrutiny. The extended procedure for considering legislation—the Second Reading nature of the procedure —will make scrutiny by the House of Commons much more difficult. Each proposal will have to be examined and then, if it is changed, it will have to be examined again by the House. That would potentially double the time given to examination. In some ways, speeding up the timetable of procedures and the ultimatum date will also make that difficult.
Although the Minister of State wrote a letter to me explaining how she thought the scrutiny procedures could be improved in Parliament here — that is published on page 67 of the Select Committee's report—it goes only a small way towards achieving the improvements in scrutiny that we were asking for.

Mr. William Cash: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is entirely up to date with what has been happening. Is he aware that the Minister of State has written to the Chairman of the European Legislation Select Committee, of which I am a member? In her letter of 16 June she says:
May I simply confirm that we recognise that the Single European Act will involve some added burden of scrutiny and the Government are ready to make the necessary changes in existing scrutiny arrangements.
Therefore, it would appear, subject to what the Minister of State will say, that there is every reason to suppose that we shall have effective scrutiny arrangements, in line with the Government's commitment.

Mr. Foulkes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing me up to date on that matter. I have not seen that letter. He is more optimistic than I about the Government's ability to put forward adequate scrutiny arrangements. The Minister will be speaking later in the debate, and I look forward to hearing her reply and perhaps an elaboration of her remarks on 16 June.
Let me deal with the Government's improvement in the scrutiny procedures. The Minister might be able to answer some of the questions about scrutiny — for example, about the recesses. The recesses of this Parliament do not correspond in time to those of the European Parliament, and that will create difficulty. That point has not been dealt with.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However good the scrutiny procedure is, it only allows vision, and does not allow for any influence or action on the Ministers or the European institutions.
Leaving that aside, is my hon. Friend aware that the second special report from the Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, suggested ways in which the work of the Committee could be slightly extended to give the House proper notice of all European developments. I should add that the report was unanimous and encompassed many views on this matter. Despite its name, the Select Committee was not able to report wholly on the very business before us today.

Mr. Foulkes: I accept all the points made by my hon. Friend. I know that the House is grateful to the Select Committee, and especially to my hon. Friend as Chairman, for the work it does. I also know that he is the first to admit that the way in which it is able to operate is inadequate to scrutinise the burden of legislation that we get from the European Community. We are not doing it justice. Important matters are considered inadequately, late at night and in a cursory way.
That brings me to another point that needs to be answered, which is the timing of debates. The squeezing in of important issues at an inappropriate time late at night or between other business so that no proper scrutiny can be carried out has been raised again and again. I accept that scrutiny is only one aspect of it and does not necessarily allow influence.
5 pm
As I said earlier, the power of the United Kingdom Government in the Council will be reduced. I mentioned the Luxembourg compromise. The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities said in its report, pages 6 to 8, that it will be difficult for any Government, in our case the British Government, to resist a united front of the Commission of the European Parliament and the rest of the Council. It is clear from the report—I think that its analysis is right—that a political momentum will build up behind a particular proposal and that although there may be a technical agreement in relation to the Luxembourg compromise it will be very difficult for the British Government to resist that momentum.
Proposals which are amended by the European Parliament, the amendments of which are accepted by the Commission, can be rejected only by a unanimous vote of the Council. That means that the powers of the British Government are severely circumscribed.
The Prime Minister stated, I believe in reply to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), that the last word remains with the Council. That is not much good if the only last word it is permitted to say is "Yes".

Mr. Marlow: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the European Assembly or Parliament, whatever it is to be, can propose an amendment. The Commission could agree with that amendment. That amendment could be very radical and very much alter the proposal being put forward. The hon. Gentleman was saying that, unless the Council is unanimous in opposing that amendment, it would go through. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the Commission and the Parliament/Assembly together could bring forward almost totally new legislation unless all members of the Council — every country in the Community, at Foreign Minister level—were against it.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman has underlined my statement and made it clearer. That is an exact description of what I understand the position to be.
As the report of the House of Lords Select Committee says, the power of United Kingdom Ministers within the Council has been reduced, so the power of the United Kingdom Parliament has been reduced. It says that United Kingdom Ministers
may be outvoted more often. The intervention of the European Parliament is outside their control. They will have less opportunity …to influence the Commission through negotiation at the second stage …

It also says that some legislative powers will actually be delegated to the Commission.

Sir Russell Johnston: indicated dissent.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) may shake his head, but that is correct. The Minister will have an opportunity to contradict not only me but the report of the House of Lords Select Committee. The members of the Committee may not be elected—I have my reservations about that —but they still have an ability and understanding of the situation and have made their comments quite clear.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we shall want a full explanation from the Minister because at an earlier stage she talked about this not being a zero-sum game. When it was put to her that those proposals would lead to a reduction in power both of the House and of British Ministers she was very keen to suggest that there was some way in which power could be expanded. I hope that we will get some explanation because since we have had the two very useful reports of the Select Committees it has become obvious that she is wrong.

Mr. Foulkes: I know that the hon. Gentleman is as concerned about this matter as I am. We are in Committee and do not necessarily have the formal structure of Second and Third Reading and the Minister will have an opportunity of correcting the Select Committees, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and myself if we are wrong. However, I very much doubt that all of us are wrong.
I shall now come to the areas on which co-decision-making, the important extension of the responsibility of the Community, is taking place. It is important that we know exactly what areas are affected. Are they marginal; to our way of life? Are they peripheral matters? The areas are not peripheral or marginal; they are important. We are talking about article 7—
rules to prohibit discrimination on grounds of nationality"—
and article 49—
measures to bring about freedom of movement for workers …by ensuring close cooperation between national employment services:
(b) by systematically and progressively abolishing those administrative procedures and practices and those qualifying periods in respect of eligibility for available employment
These are important matters. The responsibility is going to be increasingly transferred away from the House towards Strasbourg.
We are talking about article 56(2), which states:
directives for co-ordination of national measures providing for special treatment of foreign nationals on grounds of public policy, security or health.
Article 57(2) refers to
mutual recognition of formal qualifications.
and, of course, all the arrangements for the internal market.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and others will participate in the debate later on the group of amendments dealing with the internal market. Samples of the areas concerned are speed limits for motor vehicles, public procurement arrangements, life insurance and mortgages, company liquidation, takeover bids and policy on state aid for coal, steel and shipbuilding or whatever. Therefore, these are not peripheral matters. They are central to our economy.
On top of all that, the Bill implementing the Single European Act introduces majority voting for the Council on a number of areas on which unanimity was previously required. The Single European Act talks of moves towards European union. It means greater integration, as we have seen in terms of the European monetary system. I know that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is in favour of that. It means a movement towards tax harmonisation. The official Opposition believe in cooperation with our European partners and within Europe. However, we are against moving towards a united states of Europe. We are against the kind of union that is implicit and explicit in the Single European Act and the Bill that implements it. That is why we oppose the Bill and ask the House to support amendment No. 2 tonight.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When in 1978 the House ill-advisedly consented to convert the European Assembly into a directly elected body, it was predicted that a directly elected body, which was already endowed with the power to refuse assent to the budget of the Community and to dismiss the Commission, would soon discover and explore the potential powers which it would exercise, as in past centuries the House had made a similar discovery and exploration. The anxiety which was expressed on that score was strong on both sides of the House. As a result of that, what professed to be a protection was written into the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 which enacted:
No treaty which provides for any increase in the powers of the Assembly shall be ratified by the United Kingdom unless it has been approved by an Act of Parliament.
Hon. Members who have looked at clause 3(4) of the Bill will notice that that is precisely what we are invited to do in approving the Bill. We do not need to argue whether the consequences of the treaty and the Bill are an increase in the powers of the Assembly. The Government say that that is so. The Government may seek to argue that that increase of the powers of the Assembly is not at the expense of the powers of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That proposition rests on an important fallacy about the nature of power. There is no vacuum of power unexercised, unavailable, which is ready to be dished out to new occupiers and exercisers.
At the moment, the power exists and it is shared between this Parliament and the institutions of the Community in accordance with a particular pattern. If the power of any portion of those institutions is increased, as the Government tell the House it is increased in respect of the Assembly, by the treaty and the Bill, it must follow that the effectiveness and real power—the political power—of the other elements, the other possessors, is diminished. Whatever is arrogated to the Assembly by the legislation and the treaty is deducted from what is available to this Parliament and, thus, to the people it represents.
No unoccupied ground or unexplored territory can be colonised by the Assembly without a diminution in the control and powers of this House. We are discussing an actual deduction from the powers of this House so that those powers may be exercised by other bodies over which we do not have anything like the same opportunity of control.
There is a kind of tripod in the institutions of the Community—the Council, the Commission, and what was hitherto called the Assembly. It is only through the Council that this House can assert itself. It is only in the

Council that the members of the Government who are answerable to this House can assert themselves. Of course, in the last resort, they can only assert themselves in the Council when there is decision by unanimity. Whether they decide in the Council by unanimity or otherwise, it is through the Council that this House still exercises a degree of power, on behalf of the United Kingdom, in the institutions of the European Community.
A big shift is created in relative power the Council—its relative power in the tripod—by the treaty and the Bill. That power is transferred and inures to the benefit of the other two elements — the Commission and the Assembly. Anyone who has studied the co-operation procedure, as it is delicately called, with which the amendment deals will have seen the joint interest that the Commission and the Assembly have in co-operating with one another. Indeed, an almost corrupt deal has been struck between the Commission and the Assembly— a log-rolling or back-scratching arrangement between the two — whereby, if the Commission proceeds by way of the co-operation process, it can use the added power which has been attributed to the Assembly to strengthen itself and its intentions vis-á-vis the Council. Therefore, it is the Commission and the Assembly, jointly, which are given an accretion of power at the expense of the Council and, therefore, at the expense of this House — the Council being the only element which can be directly influenced and ultimately controlled by the Parliament and people of the United Kingdom.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I wondered why the right hon. Gentleman used the word "corrupt" in that sentence. It seems a perfectly legitimate exercise on the part of the Commission to seek to extend its influence.

Mr. Powell: All power tends to be associated in human experience with corruption. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is not strange to hon. Members that methods which could indelicately be described as "corruption" are essential to the control and management of any democratic and elected Assembly. I hope that the House will not be too prissy about the use of that rather ugly expression. Two of the three elements in the structure of the European Economic Community can, by collusion with one another — by mutually supporting one another — weaken the third. If the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) prefers the words "collusion" and "conspiracy" to "corruption", I am prepared to make that concession.

Mr. Spearing: Is the right hon. Gentleman more right than perhaps he first thought? The preamble to the Single European Act states:
the wishes of the democratic peoples of Europe, for whom the European Parliament, elected by universal suffrage, is an indispensable means of expression".
If that is taken to heart as it is meant, the Commission will present proposals which are liked by the European Parliament but which together will be corrupting to the influence of this House.

Mr. Powell: Before I conclude I shall refer to the nature of the Assembly and its claims to be democratic or parliamentary.
I now turn to the three subjects covered by the group of amendments. The first is the embodiment by the Act in the law of the United Kingdom of what is called the cooperation procedure, which reduces the powers and opportunities of the Council in the event of certain


decisions being taken by the European Assembly. The second concerns the hitherto external powers of the Council to make additions to the associated membership of the Community. The third subject concerns the nomenclature of that body.
5.15 pm
I have discussed the consequences of the new cooperation procedure which is at the heart of the treaty. It is probably the prize which was most valued by those in the Government who secured agreement to the treaty. It represents an actual and literal transfer of power from one place to another within the institutions of the Community. The result of that procedure is that the input of the European Assembly alters the respective powers of the Commission and the respective power of the Council of Ministers in a manner which inevitably diminishes the influence and possibilities open to a member of the Council representing one of the member states of the Community.
It is a machinery whereby, at the will of the Commission and the Assembly, the hand of this Government and, therefore, of this Parliament and the electorate of the United Kingdom can be weakened or tied. The matter does not need to be argued at exhaustive length, because the co-operation machinery, as it is set out in article 7, displays quite clearly what the consequences for control through the Council will be.
It is useful to look at the effect of articles 8 and 9 which amend articles 237 and 238 of the treaty of Rome. As the treaty stands, under article 237 the decision to increase the membership of the Community is dealt with by the Council after the opinion of the Commission has been obtained. The new article which will replace that provides for the key power to be transferred to the Assembly. That can happen only after the assent of the European Parliament is received. The European Parliament is put in the key position in the expansion of the Community which was hitherto exclusively occupied by the Council of Ministers. If hon. Members will look at the consequences of article 9, amending article 238 of the treaty of Rome, they will see exactly the same process being applied to association.
The Parliament is being inserted in the position of ultimate authority and control, which was hitherto occupied by the Council. It is another reminder and indication—it may be marginal in its practical effect but it is significant — of the triumph of the Assembly, as against the other institutions of the Community, which is represented by this treaty and the Bill.
That brings me to the third topic—nomenclature. It is no small matter for the House of Commons to declare solemnly that the European Assembly is a Parliament and to bless that nomenclature, although it has been popularly used hitherto. "Parliament" is a word of magic and power in this country. We refer to "parliamentary sovereignty." We live under the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament. Our history and political life would be unintelligible if Parliament were removed from that history. There is no other European nation of which the same can be said. There is no other European nation at the heart of whose identity and history lies its parliamentary assembly.
When we proceed to accord the title "Parliament" formally and by the law of the United Kingdom to another assembly, we should be conscious of the symbolical nature of the act which we are performing. We are endowing that

institution potentially with the same sovereignty, powers and representative quality that we in this Parliament possess. It is an act of meaning. It is not something that we can dismiss as a mere formality, a matter of nomenclature to be hurried over. It is significant and, if there were any possibility of otherwise mistaking the meaning and importance of the treaty and the Bill, we should be put upon warning by this part of the legislation.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West interrupted the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) and asked what was wrong with calling the European Parliament a Parliament, because it was a democratic assembly. He said that it was an elected assembly, and he asked what was wrong with equating election with democracy. But merely to be elected is not to be democratic, in the sense that we understand it. There is a certain relationship between electorate and elected body upon which the very nature of parliamentary sovereignty and our claim to be a representative body depends.
Our Parliament implies a homogeneous electorate. It implies a single nation which elects the disparate Members who sit together in the House. It is the Parliament of a united kingdom. The Parliament which assembles at Strasbourg is an assembly of those who have been elected in different nations, and, incidentally, under different electoral systems, to congregate together. They do not come together as the representatives of a single self-recognising community. The nature of that assembly is different in kind from the nature of this Parliament. We are performing a type of solecism in attributing the term "Parliament" to that Assembly. What we should not do is create the implications and hallow the assumptions which attach to the word "Parliament" when applied to the European Assembly. The European Assembly is not, in our sense of the term, a "Parliament" and it is not the wish of the people of this country that it should ever be a Parliament in the sense of being the ultimate repository of the legislative and executive powers under which the people of the United Kingdom are to live.
By sanctioning these changes, and especially the change in nomenclature, we are perpetrating a lie in the face of Europe, implying that the British people voluntarily intend to surrender to the institutions of the Community those powers over themselves which hitherto have been exclusively vested in the House. They do not intend to do that. When they become aware that that is what is happening, they will put a stop to it.

Sir Anthony Meyer: It is impossible to withhold admiration for the determination with which the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) defends the shadow of the absolute sovereignty of this Parliament. I shall refer rather more to the substance of this Parliament's sovereignty. In his own eloquent, incorruptible way, the right hon. Gentleman fights against all change, however inevitable and inexorable.
I should like to take up one aspect of that substance. The right hon. Member for South Down said that any powers taken by the European Parliament would be powers taken away from this Parliament. In theory he is correct, but he makes no allowance for the factor that underlies the purpose and existence of the European Community—the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. If the Community becomes effective, it will exercise real power and influence in the world. This Parliament, as a constituent member of that Community, may, in theory,


have surrendered some of its powers to a European Parliament, but it will exercise its powers, slightly limited, on matters in which it can influence events.
It was sad to listen to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann). There is no hon. Member who has contributed more, from both the Front Benches and the Back Benches, to making this one of the great Parliaments of the world. We all greatly esteem his contributions to our debates.

Mr. Budgen: Now put the knife in his back.

Sir Anthony Meyer: This is no knife. I wish merely to express sadness at the fact that my right hon. Friend should so lack confidence in this Parliament's ability to put its ideas across to the rest of the world that he fears that, by allowing ourselves to be drawn into the operations of a European Parliament, we will prejudice the rights and privileges of the House.
I felt sad, in a different way, when listening to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I know of his great devotion for many years to the cause of closer co-operation in Europe. He talked a lot of sense about the need to improve our arrangements. If those arrangements are inadequate, the fault lies, not in our stars, but in ourselves. It is up to us to evolve a better system for scrutinising the great mass of legislation from the European Parliament. It was sad to listen to the hon. Gentleman's nit-picking, mean-minded approach to a matter of vital interest to us all — how we can make parliamentary institutions in the European Community function more effectively.
When Britain joined the European Community, there was one thing which the other Community states looked confidently towards us to provide—an example of how the parliamentary institutions of the Community could be made to function effectively. I am the first to admit that the solution which has been chosen of a directly elected European Parliament is not necessarily ideal. I see a possible difficulty in trying to treat this Parliament as though it were closely analogous to a national Parliament. There is a fundamental difference, because the European Parliament in no way sustains an Executive. None the less, it can and should play a vital role in controlling that Executive. This is surely a function that we should teach the European Parliament the better to fulfil instead of constantly carping and seeking to limit its powers and restrict contact between this Parliament and the European Parliament. In this respect Britain has been a great disappointment to the other members of the European Community, who looked to us, in this matter above all, to set them a good example.
We have already heard much, and we shall hear a great deal more during the rest of the debate, about the restrictions which the new clause will place on the powers of our Parliament. I have already admitted that it will place some theoretical restrictions on it. None the less, by those timid steps in the direction of creating a European Community the better able to carry out its functions, and the better able to subject those functions to some parliamentary scrutiny, we shall create a Community which far more effectively than the present one can further the purposes of Britain's policy, economically and in foreign affairs.
Therefore, I warmly welcome the provisions of the agreement and shall have no hesitation in opposing the amendment.

Mr. Michael Foot: I strongly support the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann). I join the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) to the right hon. Gentleman, but I make my tribute absolutely unqualified in the sense that I shall be happy to support him in the Lobby. He has done a great service, along with the many other services he has contributed to the House of Commons, in bringing the matter before us.
I am sad that I was not present on 23 April when the right hon. Gentleman made another important contribution on the subject. I recall that James Maxton once said that the House of Commons is a very dangerous place to be away from. I regret the fact that I was away from it on that day, especially because I was unable to vote then, although I shall vote for the right hon. Gentleman's amendment with all the more pleasure today.
As hon. Members listen further to the debate they will have the experience that we had during our debates on the European Communities Act 1972, which we are now amending, increasingly recognising the growing significance of what we are discussing. When we debated the 1972 Act, people thought at the beginning that most of the Committee matters could be dealt with briefly, but we soon discovered that the issues became greatly enlarged. That is the case now. It should not be called the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, but the "European Communities (Concealment of Real Intentions) Bill".
The Bill goes far further than was suggested by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he introduced it on Second Reading. Naturally, I read carefully what he said then. My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) enlarged on the matter when he presented it today. The more we discuss the Bill, the more it will be recognised that the Government must deal with it differently from the way they intended. No one can tell how long the proceedings will continue in Committee, but I hope that the Government will make up their mind immediately that they cannot deal with the Bill on Third Reading next week in the way that has been proposed. I hope that they will set aside a full day for the discussion. The more they listen to the issues, the more they will recognise that that is the proper course.
I would not use words such as "corruption" or "corrosion", as did the right hon. Member for Taunton, to describe the processes by which those matters are discussed in the European institutions. There is not the slightest doubt about the truth of what the right hon. Gentleman says about the balance between the European Assembly and the other institutions of the European Community. Different powers are given to the different bodies in the European Assembly. In 1972, if we had been told that the European Assembly would have increasingly enlarged powers—if the European Assembly's rights and powers had been defended in 1972 on the grounds that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West suggested — the objections to the Bill would have been even stronger than they were, because we could have seen the mammoth transfer of power from this place to the other institutions. But it was concealed.
The transfer was concealed because it did not take place between this democratic Assembly and the Council of Ministers. The legislative powers were transferred, but, of course, the Council of Ministers was a different institution. No one knew exactly what sort of institution it was, because it was an extraordinary body. It was an executive body which also had legislative powers, and which was removing from this place the power of exercising proper legislative control over our actions.
In 1972, we did something unknown in the history of Parliament. We transferred great chunks of legislative power from the House to an institution which had no proper legislative process. We agreed to do it because we were told that that was the only way in which the Community could be established. If we had been told at the same time "By the way, a hit later we shall introduce a little amendment Bill to ensure that the European Assembly and Parliament will control this extraordinary contraption, removing some powers from the House of Commons," the objections would have been even greater.
I shall not discuss all the other matters which were presented to the country at that time. Many hon. Members will recall that we were told at the time of the referendum that there would be a great enlargement of our employment opportunities and our economic prospects. We were told that there would be no interference with the power of economic decision-making in Britain. Those were the prospects held before us. That was how the referendum was pushed through and the majority was retained. It makes it all the more important that the House of Commons should not proceed to the next stage without examining everything in detail and ensuring that every possible safeguard exists.
We should pass the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Taunton. I hope that we shall not be told, as we were at the time of the 1972 Act, that the entire Bill must be passed and that no clause could be removed without the agreement of the other countries.
That was an infringement of the rights of the House, which was why some of us objected so passionately to the Act and the form in which it was presented. It was presented to the House of Commons without any possibility of amending even one clause.
I hope that the Govenment will give us the absolute assurance that that does not apply to the Bill, that we can amend it as we wish and that we may have enough time to do it. That is what the House of Commons should do; if it does not, it will fail to discharge its responsibilities.

Mr. Ian Gow: Although I did not have the good fortune to be a Member of this place and see at first hand the right hon. Gentleman's heroic opposition to the European Communities Bill, could he remind the Committee whether he was in the same Lobby as I was when I opposed the European Assembly Elections Act 1978?

Mr. Foot: No. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman reminds the Committee, that I was a member of the Government who introduced that measure. As a member of that Government, I supported it and helped to carry it through. It is all the more necessary that we should prevent an extenson of the powers of the European Assembly, however it may be elected. I have been opposed to the extension of those powers, and I remain so.
Of course, I understand that such assemblies have a natural power hunger. One does not blame the individuals

concerned. Some of my best friends are members of the European Assembly. Mrs. Castle could never be described as lacking power hunger. Even she has been able to restrain herself, however, so great is her allegiance to the authority of the House. We should follow her example.I am not surprised that the Italians and the Spaniards, who have just joined the Assembly, wish to make it stronger, although many of them will draw back, as we should draw back, when they see what really happens. The Parliaments of many member states, including the French Parliament, try to retain powers in their countries, although the French seek to do this differently because of the greater authoritarian powers vested in their President and executive.
We must preserve every precious part of the power that we retain in the House. The right hon. Gentleman's amendment serves that purpose and I hope that it will be supported by the Government. Perhaps when the Minister replies she will show us the best way forward, which would be by allowing a free vote. That would settle the matter here and now. I hope that the hon. Lady will give the House an absolute assurance that the Bill will not be forced through the House with the insistence that every letter, comma and clause must be carried. She should give us an assurance that the Bill can be amended, and that: the House can apply its ideas to the Bill so that the result may be a better Bill, if indeed any Bill could emerge from such proper scrutiny.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Every hon. Member has agreed that the clause is one of a series which would remove power from the British Government and the British Parliament and transfer it to the institutions of the Community. Therefore, it is right and proper that we should think carefully about whether this is a sensible thing to do at present and especially on today of all days. Despite the solemn agreement made by all member states on 4 December 1984 that strict budgetary controls would be applied, we have today received a paper from the European Commission, which is only now available in the Vote Office, stating that the Commission will not have enough money to pay its bills, even on the basis of the further 1·4 per cent. VAT contribution. Even more worrying is the fact that this has come only two days after the Government's solemn assurance in a written answer that a 1·22 per cent. rate was more than enough for its requirements.
I suggest, therefore, that we should consider not whether to give more power to the Community institutions, but whether we should take greater powers to try to control some of the excesses of the European Assembly and Commission. When discussing proposals and pledges, we should also remember that the agreement of 4 December 1984 gave a solemn pledge that member states would be given a monthly report on agricultural spending. I have asked the Prime Minister three times, and the Foreign Secretary twice, when we shall receive those reports. Not one such report has been produced. We must ask ourselves whether it would be wise to transfer more power and responsibility from the Government to the institutions of the Community.
It is important that we should consider whether the European Parliament uses its existing powers in such a way as to justify more power being given to it. Hon.


Members have complained that the European Assembly does not have enough power, but it has some power. We must ask ourselves whether it uses that power responsibly.
We need consider only two recent decisions of the European Court. The first related to complaints that the European Parliament had illegally and fraudulently given £27 million to political parties and had not asked for it back. Secondly, the European Assembly passed an illegal budget. The British Foreign Secretary and Attorney-General complained to the European Court about the illegal action. The battle is still being fought, but Britain has won the first round. Is it wise to give more power to that organisation?
The crucial thing is that not many hon. Members are aware of the details concerning the power that will be transferred to the European Assembly and the reason for this is obvious. The House of Commons Library provided the excellent advice that, after studying the Single European Act, it was not clear as to how the new arrangements would work, nor what additional powers would be transferred. This is probably the most dangerous aspect, especially when we remember, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) said, that the Assembly has passed a resolution saying that it will exploit to the full its new powers, and do so in the context of a European union of member states.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend take any comfort from the fact that the existing powers of the European Parliament derive not so much from its original treaty powers as from the Iso Glucose case, which gave it considerable powers to delay legislation under the existing provisions? Does he take even greater consolation from the fact that the European Parliament has rarely got its act together sufficiently to exercise any influence over the EEC in any way, shape or form? What makes him believe that with any enlargement of its powers it will be able or prepared to take advantage of those powers in the future?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is well aware that one of the Assembly's powers relates to budgets. He will know that it has had much influence, because it passed the illegal budget which caused a massive extension in the provisions made for spending by the Council. It has used its powers considerably.
I shall deal with two matters which I hope will cause hon. Members some concern and persuade those who believe that this is a positive step forward not to increase the Assembly's powers. Will the extra powers be positive powers? If the Assembly is a bright, fresh democratic institution, will ideas be put forward to help solve the problems of the EEC?
My reading, with which I hope the Minister of State will agree, is that the Assembly's new powers are almost wholly negative. They will stop things happening and stop the passage of reforms. That is the most dangerous sort of additional power to give to any democratic assembly.
Paragraph (c) of new article 149 on page 6 of the Single European Act states clearly:
If the European Parliament has rejected the Council's common position unanimity shall be required for the Council to act on a second reading.

The Council's only defence, if the European Parliament should muck up something, or insert massive amendments, is to drop the whole business. Paragraph (e) states:
Unanimity shall be required for the Council to amend the proposal as re-examined by the Commission.
The Assembly now has the power to change or reject something which the Council can overturn only unanimously. This would be unlikely, bearing in mind the fact that at least two member states are constantly looking for ways to give additional powers and responsibilities to the Assembly.
My fear is that, instead of being a comparatively new legislative power or a power to consider expenditure, the Assembly will have the power to prevent things from happening and to block proposals coming from the Council of Ministers, which, in many cases, are desperately needed to reform the institutions.

Mr. Marlow: Is not there a very grave danger that the Assembly, or Parliament, will indulge in power politics on its own behalf? There may be things which we would all appreciate and agree with in this House which the Community wants to put through. There may be things which the Assembly wants done through amendment to enhance its own prestige, power and authority. May it not seek to delay those which we would all agree with so that it can enhance its own power as a quid pro quo for agreeing to that which we would want?

Mr. Taylor: That is my other fear. My hon. Friend has anticipated me. Sadly, in the EEC, as those who have taken part in it will be aware, things are not always decided on their merits. For example, five or six Councils sit in the same week. If one country wants something passed through one Council, it may have to do a deal to allow something else through. An example is the Single European Act. Although the British Government did not want it, the Prime Minister opposed it, the Foreign Secretary had the courage on this occasion to say he did not want it, and we were told that there was no need for it, we have a Single European Act. My understanding is that we agreed many matters, including strict budgetary controls, which turned out to be utterly irrelevant because they did not work. Matters are decided on package agreements one way or the other.
I appeal to hon. Members who are anxious for the European Community to develop to ask themselves whether they feel that the powers in article 149 will help the Common Market in any way to become a better organisation. I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) would like the European Parliament to do the big stuff and to undertake a great deal of the decision making at present done by national Parliaments. He has advocated his case with great sincerity. I could understand it if he regards this as a stepping stone to that objective, but the powers in article 149 are wholly negative and will certainly not make the Common Market any better, even if the powers were used responsibly.
I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind what my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said so eloquently, which was that the trouble was that nowadays we pass matters in dull, colourless language. The words do not mean a great deal to us and refer to general principles. We are all fully aware that the day will come before too long when our constituents and businesses and organisations in our constituencies will ask, "Why can't


you as a Member of Parliament do something about this?". Increasingly we shall have to reply, "I am terribly sorry but the power has gone entirely from us."
Section 145 of the Single European Act gives massive new powers to the Commission. The erosion of the veto will mean that Britain will have far less say in decision making, and that laws will be imposed on us against our wishes. These new powers for the European Assembly will greatly diminish the powers of the Council to do anything except abandon its reports.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has been suggesting that the powers are negative and would not help even the aspirations of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). Does he agree that article 149(2)(c) states:
The European Parliament may within the period of three months referred to in point (b), by an absolute majority of its component members, propose amendments to the Council's common position"?
If that change in the Council's common position is contrary to the views of Ministers of this House and is passed by an absolute majority of the European Parliament, does it not show that it has substantial positive powers, especially if the Commission agrees?

Mr. Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the procedure is rather complex. If, for example, the European Parliament suggests amendments, the suggestion goes to the Commission which introduces a revised package. The Council could make those changes only by a unanimous decision. Therefore, the Council has the power, either to accept the changes made by the Commission to the proposals put by the European Parliament, or to scrub them completely. We are all aware, bearing in mind the European Assembly's wishes to extend its powers and to extend harmonisation and expenditure, that the changes which the Assembly and Commission will propose will involve all those objectives. Therefore, there will be a choice of either abandoning the original reform which the Council wanted, or accepting the amendments which will probably be expensive and give further powers to the EEC. This new power will not enable changes to be made, but, sadly, will simply cause the Council not to get through some of the amendments and changes to new decisions which it wants. To that extent, I regard the powers as negative and dangerous.
We know that the Common Market has some problems. It has a problem controlling its expenditure, which has been a complete disaster area. Despite all the promises and pledges, we have news today that the Common Market is insolvent and does not have the money to pay its bills for 1986. We know that the common agricultural policy is nonsense. Everyone accepts that. When £150 million a week is spent on dumping, destroying and storing food, something is wrong. It must sicken poor Mr. Geldof, who sweated his guts out to raise £100 million, to find that the Common Market spends 50 per cent. more every week on dumping and destroying food.
What I say and what I hope all hon. Members will say is, "Why can't the Common Market get down to solving those problems before it looks for more power and responsibility?" For that reason I hope that we shall approve the amendment. It is the right way forward. If we do not, we shall bitterly regret this step in years to come.

Sir Russell Johnston: It will not come as a stunning surprise to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) or the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du

Cann) that I do not accept their arguments. I wholly accept the need for a full and proper debate, but I am sceptical about it resulting in any sort of change. Even the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) mentioned change. I have participated in these debates for approximately 14 years and I have never observed anybody changing his opinion. The House should take that into account. The more that the hon. Gentleman and I listen to each other, the more we are convinced that we are right and the other is wrong. That is a plain fact. [Interruption.]

Mr. Bryan Gould: The remedy is in the hon. Gentleman's own hands.

Sir Russell Johnston: The remedy lies with the hon. Member for Southend, East. I have entreated him on many occasions to take it.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does the hon. Gentleman want to make an exception of the right hon. Member for Blaenau, Gwent (Mr. Foot) on the subject of direct elections to the European Parliament and changing his mind?

Sir Russell Johnston: It was a question not of a change of mind but of the pragmatic necessities of the moment.
The Single European Act introduces only modest increases in the powers of the European Parliament. Certainly there are fewer changes than the European Parliament wants. The changes mean that the process of Community legislation is brought rather more out into the open and will be subject to better, fuller parliamentary scrutiny than has previously been the case. They will also oblige the Council to state its position more clearly, and the member Government represented on the Council to vote more openly. That is all to the good. They will have to make clear how and why certain decisions in the Council have been made, who made them and why they adopted that position. That is desirable. Anyone anxious for openness of government and for open covenants openly arrived at cannot but welcome the changes.
Many hon. Members and others are worried about the way in which major legislative decisions are reached in the Council. To try to subject individual national Ministers after a Council meeting to national parliamentary scrutiny and review is a recipe for chaos. It would bring the whole Community procedure to a halt. The Community cannot be subject in the normal process of legislation — if, indeed, we want Community legislation—to a veto by a national legislature, whether it be the House of Commons or the Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies, after the agreement has been reached by the Council. The time to exert influence is before the agreement is reached.
The House of Commons and the House of Lords, which all hon. Members will agree does exceptionally well, are entitled to examine draft Community legislation and to express their views to Ministers before they go to the decisive Council meeting. But in the last analysis, if there is to be Community legislation and if there is to be parliamentary supervision of that Community legislation, it can be achieved effectively only by the European Parliament.

Mr. Marlow: When the Cabinet decides on legislation, it introduces a Bill into the House. Indeed, there may even be a White Paper first. The Bill is debated in the Chamber, in Committee, on Report, and on Third Reading and then goes to the House of Lords. Equally significant legislation


can come from the European Community. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not believe that we should have any power whatever as the democratically elected Parliament of the United Kingdom to have a view on that legislation?

Sir Russell Johnston: I did not say that. The hon. Gentleman dreams about the so-called parliamentary democracy of this Chamber, about which we hear so much. It is nothing like so marvellous as some suggest. I said that, knowing what proposals come up in the Council, the House should scrutinise them before Ministers go to the Council to make a decision. To try to do it the other way round is not practical or possible. We have the European Community, and if we want to be democratic we have to give the Parliament more power. It is unrealistic to refer ritualistically to sovereignty and its erosion. I never cease to be amazed at the persistence of nationalism in Europe despite its malign record. If we are to have democratic decision making in the Community, it can be done only through the Parliament.
6 pm
I do not know how many hon. Members read the interesting article by Sir Henry Plumb in The Times on Wednesday.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It was very bad.

Sir Russell Johnston: That is a matter of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman's opinion is different from mine. The paragraph that I shall quote conveys the truth of the matter much more directly and clearly than the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) suggested. Sir Henry Plumb said:
The Single Act, if ratified by all governments by the end of the year, will certainly herald a transfer of sovereignty. Not a transfer from the national to the Community legislative structure, but a transfer from government and Commission civil servants to the democratically elected representatives of the people. The European Parliament is still a long way from being able to exercise its mandate over the majority of the Community budget, but this small extension of influence in regard to the internal market is good news for those who care about effective democratic control of our institutions, and bad news for the hardened professional civil servant who has long been used to usurping this function. That is the real transfer of sovereignty inherent in the Single Act.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Member may recall that Sir Henry Plumb's article, which I have here as well, followed an article that I wrote in The Times last week, in which I pointed out the importance of maintaining effective scrutiny and control here in Westminster over decisions taken both in Brussels and by our Civil Service. Sir Henry Plumb makes it clear in this article that he shares my great concern about this matter. He shows that he, too, thinks that there is a role for Westminster as well as for the European Parliament. I should he grateful if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to make that clear.

Sir Russell Johnston: I admit to the human weakness of quoting articles with which one agrees rather than those with which one disagrees. There is no need for me again to go over the ground over which I went with the hon. Member for Northampton, North, which meets the point that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is making. It is incredible that someone like Sir Henry Plumb cannot get into the House of Commons unless he queues outside or is brought in. He cannot get a pass to come into the

place. If we wish to have proper relations with Members of the European Parliament we should take a more civilised attitude than that. American research assistants find it easier to get in here.
The core of the changes provides for the European Parliament, after giving its initial opinion on a proposal from the Commission, to have the right to amend or reject, within three months, the position adopted by the Council. If the Parliament does not exercise this right, the Council position prevails. It should be stressed that this new cooperative procedure does not extend to all Community decisions—something that has not been emphasised so far—but is confined to a limited number of them.
It would be foolish to deny that there are risks of conflict between the three institutions. The challenge to all three institutions is clear. They must make a positive effort towards the closest co-operation, or at least consultation, at the earliest possible stage. For example, the Commission could extend the practice of informal discussions with the Parliament and its Committees before it formally publishes draft legislation. That is a sensible thing to do. While those Committees are subsequently scrutinising the proposals, the opportunity for discussion with the Council and the individual Governments with their own Parliament would enable effective scrutiny to take place.
The Government are to be congratulated. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) made a rather rumbustious assault on the Minister on the ground that the Government have rather changed their position, which is true. I would rather compliment them on this. That they and the Minister have seen the light is admirable and the Government should be congraulated, having treated the European Parliament rather badly before, on putting this behind them. They seem to have entered into the new spirit. I understand that, in the latter half of this year, it is planned that 15 of our Ministers will be addressing the European Parliament. That shows a different attitude, while also of course reflecting our Presidency of the Council.
Perhaps the greatest challenge is to the European Parliament itself. Since 1979, it has not always been clear that it has fully found the direction that it wishes to take, or it has found it difficult to find a future direction. That is not surprising, because it has never had a Government or an executive as we have, but is nevertheless subject to the same natural political division as we have. Parliament will have to arrange its procedures to be more effective, and the challenges of where it sits and so on will have to be looked at carefully. A strong, consistent stand on the way in which it gets elected should also be taken.
Because of my self-restraint and the pressures on time, I shall not dwell on the scandal of the way in which Members of the European Parliament are elected in the United Kingdom, which excludes a whole section of political attitude. This Parliament should not be proud of that. The constituency system is irrelevant to the European Parliament, which is concerned not with specific cases but with guidelines and general principles.
On Second Reading on 23 April, I raised a question with the Minister about which she subsequently wrote to me on 30 April. I inquired about the proposition by the Dutch that, if the Commission is allied to a minimum of three member states within the Council, this would obligate the Council to proceed directly to a vote, which might accelerate the decision-making process. The


Minister's letter was a beautiful example of agreeing and not agreeing simultaneously, which I suppose is one of the delights of diplomacy. She said:
At present, it is for the Presidency alone to decide when to call a vote; and … the Presidency is often the best judge … though if a majority of member states made clear that they wanted a vote, that would significantly influence the Presidency's decision.
There is nothing wrong with that.
The letter continues:
Any individual member state or the Commission should, in the Government's view, be able to propose a vote when it thinks this appropriate, but not to determine when a vote is held. Calling a vote when the majority do not want one would be pointless.
It would not be pointless. The whole point is that, if a number of Members consistently, over a length of time, prevent any votes being held, that is a means of putting off a decision. Sometimes the decision may be no, but at least one knows what it is.
I draw the Minister's attention to the European Parliament working document A2–56/86, part I, which is a report on the use of the veto in the Council by Mr. Nord, the Dutch vice-president of the Liberal group in the European Parliament dated 30 May. It says:
the co-operation procedure established by the Single European Act between the European Parliament and the Council denotes the will of the Member States to improve the Community decision-making process and to involve the European Parliament in this process. To this end, it would be wise to take over the proposals formulated in the Dooge report with regard to voting rules: The Presidency must proceed to a vote where the Commission or 3 Member States so request. The vote must be taken within a time limit of 30 days.
I would appreciate the Minister giving some account of what she thinks about that proposal.
I cannot end without some brief reference to the speech of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I have heard his speeches on many occasions and he seemed once again to be caught up with the mysticism which is inherent in nationalism. It almost seemed as if he would levitate during his speech. The right hon. Gentleman said that Britain was a "self-recognising community." We are not the same as the other communities across the Channel. By the clearest implication, we are also better than these other fellows across the Channel. A "self-recognising community" indeed. That sounds more like self-perpetuating tribalism. He used those familiar words, "control, veto and assertion". These are negative and fractious words.
Right hon. and hon. Members must realise that Europe's problems and the problems of the Community will not be solved by some resurgence of nationalism, in so far as that has any real meaning any more. They will be solved only by political solutions, whether they be Conservative, Labour or Liberal. The proper forum for that, within the Community, is the European Parliament. I welcome this limited extension of its influence.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: We need only remind ourselves of the traditional and heroic alliance manifested yet again between the speeches of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and that of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) to oppose the amendment. We heard again that saddening and depressing recourse to the past.
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said about the self-delusion which Members such as the right

hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent and for South Down reveal about our system and this Parliament. He described their sense of fantasy and imagination which is in no way connected with the truth either of yesterday or of today. If anything, their view is a reverse of the truth. Their 'view must be par excellence the reverse. Unfortunately, the parliamentary system in the Euorpean countries — and there are many details, exceptions and constitutional traditions which we could discuss at great length but we will not do so tonight — where the power of the Parliament vis-á-vis the Executive, both the Civil Service part and the ministerial part, is weakest when the process is a self-sustaining ritual and which, as many commentators have said, is a quintessential and classical demonstration of the elective dictatorship.
We can by all means say that there are many good and positive aspects of that system which enable Governments to go ahead on a rapid basis with the creation of new legislation. However, to pretend that that is not true and that there is some heroic mystical and perfect democratic function in this place is absurd. It is also absurd to imply that those terrible, ill-educated foreigners— ill educated in all matters of democracy and constitutions—have no idea about these sacred subjects. That is not only absurd; it is irresponsible. That idea would give people outside this House with a less elaborate education than the two right hon. Gentlemen I have mentioned the impression of something special which is phantasmagoric, self-imagined and absurd.
Right hon. Members of such distinction and with such long parliamentary careers as those to which I have referred have a responsibility to the public. They should be more realistic about the limitations of our system. They should espouse its good qualities, but also say honestly and truthfully that there are many weaknesses —

Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dykes: I will give way later.
They must be honest and say that there are many weaknesses in the system. However, that does not help us much in what we are considering today. We are considering the practical world and the complexities of these relationships between giant bureaucracies and the major, complicated decisions which must be made for the promotion of the economic and social welfare of the public in this country and of the other European states. To pretend that there is some special sovereignty syndrome in this place, which must not in any way be changed by accession to any treaty, is nonsense.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is attacking hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, he has not made any arguments in favour of the transference of' power away from this House to Strasbourg and Brussels in the areas of competence which I and other hon. Members described earlier. The hon. Gentleman has not given any reasons why these decisions can be better taken by the Community rather than by the United Kingdom Parliament or why we should agree to them. If the hon. Gentleman addressed himself to those points, we might listen to him rather more carefully than we are now, as we listen to the general assertions and attacks that he is indulging in.

Mr. Dykes: That is the second part of the complete picture which I will discuss in a moment. However, it is


necessary as a preamble to that to establish what I am suggesting. Of course the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) would not accept that as he really is a good European.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): He is a good European when it suits him.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's correction. I believe that he wants to be more enthusiastic but his Opposition position prevents that.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Dykes: I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman. If he can restrain himself, he will be able to speak later. I believe that I know what he wanted to say.
Of course the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley was right to allude to the second part of the picture. I simply do not like the false premise which was created at the beginning of the debate. That was a chemistry of nonsense. Those arguments are completely at variance with the truth.
The additional powers that will accrue to the European Parliament are important. The stronger relationship of the European Parliament with the Council of Ministers and the so-called transference of powers are also important. These points have already been mentioned in paragraph 29 on page 10 of the 12th report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities entitled "Single European Act and Parliamentary Scrutiny".

Mr. Deakins: Paragraph 28.

Mr. Dykes: I will then refer first to paragraph 28 as I have been prompted to do so by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins). There is no effective parliamentary scrutiny procedure or mechanism for maintaining a strong surveillance of NATO decisions. That is a more powerful treaty when we consider its subject matter. Any treaty agreement in relation to that is more ominous in terms of the surrender of power from this place as a sovereign Parliament when compared to anything else in the European Community, however profound the European Communities are by way of the creation of a treaty base. All treaties do what is stated in paragraph 28.
I intended, however, to refer to paragraph 29, which states:
The erosion of some of the power of national Parliaments was an inevitable consequence of membership of the Community.
We have always known that and it was always made clear. That was a positive aspect and part of the recommendation of the keen Europeans. It was accepted by others who said that there would be a reciprocal benefit greater than that diminution of the intrinsic national power. Paragraph 29 continues:
It is liable to be accelerated by measures which make the Community more effective politically and economically.
That is the centrality of the case. We can see how slow the Community has been to develop to the benefit of all member states and how the constitutional frustration can be overcome only by additional power-increasing measures for the European Parliament vis-á-vis other institutions. As the proponents have already said, these

powers are limited and modest and should not terrify me or others who are more dispassionate than I am about our membership of the Community.
The paragraph goes on to say:
it is encouraged by the existence of the Community's own directly-elected Parliament.
Once we as a sovereign Parliament, like the others in the member states, took that decision, rightly, I think, to favour direct elections — the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was enthusiastic about it—the increased powers of that Parliament have to be rationalised as well. It is not a Parliament in the national sense of an Executive being present within it, as the right hon. Member for South Down said, but it is a true and developing Parliament in the sense of a trans-national body, perhaps akin to the developing, germinating United States Congress in the early days.
Many similarities are now developing in the separation of powers. It will be greatly to the benefit of the new European entity and the European union of the future. That will not be a United States of Europe, so those fears are groundless. It will be a special new creation, not known in the world so far, but none the less one which will be greatly to the benefit of the economic progress of members of the public of the member states.
However, there is an additional difference which must be brought out. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for South Down who said that there would be a straight net transference process of power from this place to the European Parliament plus a bit to the other institutions as well. He referred to there being no vacuum, but at least a semi-vacuum exists in the set up which has to be taken care of as well, and is effectively, by the Bill. That is an additional reason why the amendment should be rejected.
The vacuum or semi-vacuum has been all the decisions which the Council of Ministers should have made in recent years at the suggestion and behest of the Commission, which has a constitutional duty to propose new legislation under the treaty, which it has not done for reasons of the overweening nationalism which exists in that body. The right hon. Gentleman may be pleased about that. The paralysis comes from the feeling that it has to agree unanimously because of the Luxembourg compromise, and the desire of the politicians in that Council, of whatever country, to stop progress in the EEC, even if that progress is not a direct reflection of any diminution of any national policies expressed in one or two member states. That at least is a semi-vacuum. By overcoming that by the proposals in the Bill we shall see that the Community can make the kind of progress that members of the public in all the member states want because they know that that is synonymous with rising living standards, the freedom that comes more and more from being a European as well as a citizen of an individual member state, and the feeling that Europe can survive and prosper only by acting more and more closely together through its developing and sophisticated parliamentary mechanisms.

Mr. Deakins: Three of the amendments that we are debating in this group are in my name. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I take a few minutes to develop certain themes.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) talked about Labour Members coming clean. I remind him that he and those whom he supported in the 1975 referendum,


and still supports, both the federalists and those who wish to see a European Government, should come clean with the British people.
I have here a document put out by the British Government for the 1975 referendum. On two separate pages there is a headline:
Will Parliament lose its power?
Part of it says:
No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.
Where does that assurance stand now in the light of the new co-operation procedure? I shall have more to say about the loss and weakening of the veto in the debate on clause stand part.
The same document says:
Remember: All the other countries in the Market enjoy, like us, democratically elected Governments answerable to their own Parliaments and their own voters. They do not want to weaken their Parliaments any more than we would.
Is not the clear implication of those words that there would he no weakening of the sovereignty of the British Parliament in the acceptance of the European Communities Bill in 1972? The electorate was misled by the hon. Gentleman and his friends in 1975, and they would no doubt go on misleading them again if there were a similar opportunity.

Sir Russell Johnston: Can the hon. Gentleman justify a view in which he seems to be saying that he would prefer to give influence and authority to a British Conservative than to a German Socialist in determining legislation?

Mr. Deakins: The only way that one could justify giving authority to anyone from overseas, however linked with us in co-operative agreements, would be as part of a European system of government, which I completely reject. I do not wish to see Britain as part of a federal Europe or any form of European union. However, we shall have these debates in more detail on later amendments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I simply express my profound and absolute disagreement with him. He is a federalist. There is nothing wrong with that: it is perfectly legal. People should declare themselves rather more than they have done in debates such as this.
I shall say nothing about the growth in the Assembly's power since 1973. In view of the undoubted wish of the Committee to proceed to a vote in a reasonable time on this group of amendments. I shall reserve my remarks on that aspect for the clause stand part debate. Indeed, I shall say little more on the issue of the veto.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 45 relate to the change of name and the retrospective provision in clause 3. The Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been misled by their officials over clause 3. It would have been perfectly possible to deal with the change of name, regardless of what one feels about it—I am utterly opposed to it—without going to the length of introducing retrospective legislation. In effect, clause 3 rewrites history. It will expunge from the records of Britain any reference to a European Assembly. In future, all those references will be changed so that we shall be referring to a European Parliament. That is worthy of a totalitarian Government of the worst possible type—rather like the Communist regimes which continually rewrite histories. Russian history books contain no mention of Trotsky. Secondary legislation passed by the House of Commons in the past 14 or 15 years since we have been a member will contain

no reference in future to the European Assembly. I am sure that if it could the Foreign Office would like to rev, rite the history books as well.
I do not see what advantage there is in that. A change could have been brought about perfectly simply by merely saying that, where the word "assembly" occurs in legislation passed up to the date on which the clause comes into force, it shall be taken in future as referring to the European Parliament. It is as simple as that. But the Foreign Office, which is now full of federalists—most of them advising the Minister—is telling the Minister and Parliament in the Bill that we must expunge the word "assembly" from our record. I challenge the Minister when she replies to give me any logical explanation of why this method was chosen rather than the method that I have suggested.
The fact is that the Foreign Office does not like, and has never liked, the idea of an assembly. It has always been responsible for Ministers, including the Prime Minister, from the time that we became a member in 1973. calling it a Parliament when it was still legally an assembly. The Foreign Office did that for its own purposes and it has taken Ministers along with it.
In the referendum campaign in 1975 the Assembly was called an Assembly and not a Parliament. If it had been called a Parliament, as it will be if the Foreign Office and Ministers have their way under this legislation, there might well have been a different outcome to the referendum.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in evidence to the Select Committee on European Legislation on 26 March 1985 my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) said:
as is well known, we would not support the federal or quasi-federal interpretation of the concept"—
by which he meant the concept of European union. In the light of that comment, can the hon. Gentleman explain how he sees us moving towards a federal or quasi-federal system of government in Europe in the terms that he has expressed it?

Mr. Deakins: I apologise to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), because I shall not have time to go into the detail in which I would like to explore this set of amendents. I give him an undertaking that during the debate on European union I shall go into the matter in much more detail, because I shall have more time than is available to me now.
The co-operation procedure has been the subject of a couple of Select Committee reports in this place and in the House of Lords. In this co-operation procedure there is a great danger not merely to the House of Commons and to the Government, but to the Council as a whole — to other member Governments. At present the Commission can accept or reject amendments passed by the Assembly. It can do that now, so why are we making such a fuss about the change in the co-operation procedure? The answer is that there is a fundamental and major change. In future, the Assembly will act on an absolute majority of all its members. It does not have to do that now when making amendments to Commission proposals and going up to the Council.
That absolute majority will strengthen the Assembly's hand vis-á-vis the Commission. At present the Commission can say that something was passed by a fairly


small majority and that it need not bother with it and it can explain its action when it puts forward revised proposals for consideration by the Council. I am talking about legislation. That is an important matter for the House of Commons, because the House is our major institution concerned with legislation. Now we are proposing to introduce a rival.
The Assembly's objections and amendments to Commission proposals will have much greater weight in future if they have to be carried by an absolute majority of the total membership of the Assembly. Like the Assembly, the Commission is basically a federalist-inclined institution, and for that reason it is likely in nearly every case to accept amendments to Commission proposals and to push them up to the Council under the co-operation procedure. That will mean a combination of the Commission and the Assembly against the Council.
I say to the federalist and pro-European Members who somehow want to see us march towards European and economic and monetary union that they are laying up a lot of trouble for the Community in this new procedure. They will set two of the Community institutions against the third in a way that has not emerged so far.

Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that within what he says about the absolute majority there is a problem for an institution such as a European Parliament in that it has to get the bodies there? Will he accept my word that, from my 'experience of that institution, it is extremely rare for an absolute majority of Members even to attend, never mind for a majority of them to agree on a measure? Strangely enough, one of the safeguards is precisely the indifference or apathy of the members of that institution. I understand what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is trying to do, but one could make a similar comment about other legislatures. Will the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) take that factor into account when considering the point?

Mr. Deakins: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) for his intervention, because he has experience in these matters and I have not. Once this Single European Act has been ratified and passed into law by all the member Governments there will be a major change. The apathy in the European Assembly will not continue for long once there is a prospect of exerting real power over Community institutions.
I should like to turn to amendment No. 13 which is also in my name. The Assembly would be given veto powers not merely over new members, but over new associate members. At the start of our proceedings I raised a point of order to the effect that this was probably an important feature because it imposes a limitation on the royal prerogative. At the moment, in association with other Governments, our Government can make treaties and those matters eventually come to the House of Commons.
The royal prerogative will be substantially affected by the new power given to the Assembly. It would be perfectly possible for the royal prerogative to be exercised in giving power to Ministers to sign a treaty and for all 12 of the appropriate Ministers in the Community to agree, but by a majority the Assembly could say no. That would diminish the royal prerogative. Whatever one thinks about its exercise, perhaps the Minister can tell us if the Queen's

consent has been notified to this diminution of an ancient right of the monarch and the Crown and the Queen in Parliament.
We are laying up a lot of trouble for the Community and its further development by giving to the Assembly the power of veto on new members and new associate members. At present, new members and new associate members have to be approved not merely by national Governments, but, certainly in the case of Britain, by Parliament as well.
One can easily foresee a clash between the elected representatives here, who give their assent to the admission of a new member country or to a new associate member following an agreement worked out by the Council of Ministers, and the Assembly, which will be able to claim to represent in some ways the people of Britain. It might arrive at a totally different conclusion. One can see a lot of clashes ahead between directly elected United Kingdom Members in the Assembly and those sitting in this Parliament.
I know where my loyalties lie, and I hope that the loyalties of all hon. Members lie in the same place. In any clash we should put the interests, the views and the decisions of this Parliament over and above decisions taken by the Assembly. There will undoubtedly be some constitutional crises in the years ahead. I do not look forward to that. There will be many troubles in the Community, and we will not wish to burden ourselves with such troubles. That is another reason for opposing this accretion of powers to the European Assembly. In view of the points that I have made, I asked the Chairman if there could be a separate vote on amendment No. 13. Perhaps that can be considered when the time comes to vote.

Mr. Bill Walker: I shall be brief, because I understand that we hope to close fairly soon the proceedings on this part of the Bill. Because I shall be brief, I hope that no hon. Member will think that I do not care deeply about what I am saying or that I have not given a lot of thought to my speech.
I am anxious about the proposal to remove the power of veto, because at the time of the referendum the people of Scotland were given a clear pledge that the United Kingdom would retain the power of the veto. We shall be discussing that matter later. At the time of the referendum there was no qualification to that pledge, nor was there any suggestion that this could or would be changed. That is important. Those hon. Members who argue that this will not undermine our national sovereignty will have to answer to the people of the United Kingdom and tell them why at the time of the referendum they stressed the importance of this aspect, while now they are trying to suggest that this is quite a harmless little Bill and will not change things very much. They say that it is all a bit of a bore and do not undertand why we should spend time on it. It is neither a harmless little Bill nor a bit of a bore.
This directly elected body will have its name changed if we accept the Bill. We are led to believe that the reason for the name change, and probably the reason for the retrospective nature of the name change, is that it has called itself a Parliament from the beginning anyway. It is argued that if through use and custom it has called itself a Parliament we should accept that by legislation. I find that argument fascinating. I remind hon. Members that I


am a Scot and a Scottish Conservative. It has been suggested by Opposition Members that we are a beleagured minority.

Mr. Foulkes: An endangered species.

Mr. Walker: We are in one sense, because we are the one party that is opposed to a Scottish Assembly, and hon. Members should note the phrase Scottish Assembly. Opposition Members may laugh, but I do not find it amusing at all. I was a Unionist before I was a Conservative. Unionism and union mean something to me. I have fought on that platform during the whole of my adult life, and that is not a matter for jest. The Union is fundamental to me. The Union of our Parliament and of our Crown is steeped in history and the Scots do not take lightly those who treat it with levity.

Mr. George Robertson: How strong a Unionist was the hon. Gentleman when, in his own city of Perth, the then leader of the Conservative and Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), made the famous declaration that the Conservative party was in favour of devolution and of a directly elected Assembly for Scotland?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman must know that I have never embraced the nonsense of so-called devolution. When my then leader espoused it, as he did on the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman referred, he lost me as a friend. My right hon. Friend's place in the Chamber is directly in front of me and he might wonder why I murmur behind his back.
The Scots Conservatives who are opposed to having a Scottish Assembly, in whatever form, realise, recognise and understand that all Assemblies, call them what one will— I take up the remarks of the former leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who made a most interesting speech— will attempt to embrace more and more power. All Assemblies will want to do that and we should not be surprised that that is their wish.
Liberal and SDP Members talk about narrowness when someone is not prepared to embrace the European structure and wants to change and improve it by moving to some sort of federalism. Yet these Members are advocating the introduction of an Assembly for Scotland, with all that that means. Indeed, they are giving support to the change in name from Assembly to Parliament. We have heard their spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), explain his reasons for supporting the change. I find it rather odd that the language which he uses when talking about Europe is different from that which he uses when talking about Scotland. There is nothing narrow and national about being a Scot or arguing that we should have a Scottish Assembly, as the hon. Gentleman says. Yet those of us who are opposed to wanting an Assembly in Europe are accused by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends of being narrow and national. I have never understood the differentiation between Europe and Scotland. The demand for a Scottish Assembly seems to me to be fairly narrow and national.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no contradiction between arguing for powers that are appropriate at a European level and powers that are appropriate at a Scottish level? Surely the argument is

complementary. As we are on this subject, perhaps he will explain what quasi-federalism is. It is something that I have never understood.

Mr. Walker: The issue is what the hon. Gentleman thinks is appropriate and what I think is appropriate in terms of powers. That is where we shall probably differ. There is no need to explore the matter further. I believe in the unitary Parliament of the United Kingdom being the voice of the people of the United Kingdom.
More and more of my constituents are growing increasingly concerned at what we are proposing through this legislation. It can be seen that we are proposing that the Parliament, as it will be called, will have powers that can block the Council's proposals unless the Council disagrees unanimously with the Parliament's view. I would suggest that such unanimity rather unlikely when there are 12 member states including Italy, which favours extra-parliamentary power and rarely disagrees with the Parliament. My constituents are asking, perfectly properly in my view, "Why is it that we have to move along this route when Europe as presently structured and organised is not working effectively?" My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) spoke on this issue at some length and I shall not bore the Committee by taking it up again.
I have received a lengthy letter—it runs to about 20 pages—from an elector. It contains many questions, and some of them I cannot answer. I do not know the answers and I am hoping that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be able to provide them. One question is as follows:
The solemn Privy Council Oath provides for those taking it to: (a) Be a true and faithful servant of the Crown. (b) Not to countenance any word or deed against the Sovereign, but to withstand the same to the utmost of their power, and to reveal it to the Sovereign. (c) To bear"—
this is the paragraph that bothers me—
faith and allegiance to the Crown, and to defend its jurisdiction and powers against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, States or potentates.
Given the royal prerogative and paragraph (c), one wonders whether our Privy Councillors are aware that the Bill will give powers to the European Assembly—

Mr. Foulkes: Potentates.

Mr. Walker: I am not talking about potentates. Ih the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) wishes to use that term, he may do so.
I want to hear my hon. Friend the Minister of State give a clear and unequivocal answer to the elector who has gone to enormous trouble to write the letter from which I have quoted. I am staggered by the number of questions that he has asked. I have not repeated them all, because if I were to do so it would take the whole evening. I have selected the question which I have read because I do not know the answer to it. After the Bill is enacted, will Privy Councillors be breaking their oath if at some future date we determine a policy on behalf of the monarch which is overturned by the European Assembly or Parliament?

Mr. Allan Rogers: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consult his Conservative colleagues in Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), who was chairman of the British Labour group in Europe, can testify that he led the only


group in the Assembly that opposed the extension of the Assembly's powers. When I was a Vice-President of the Assembly, I sat on the Institutional Committee that was chaired by Mauro Ferri. The main Rapporteur was Altiero Spinelli. The Conservative members of that committee sold Britain down the river time and time again. They are doing that constantly in Europe to conform with and to obtain the votes of their lobby in Britain, which is to he found in the farming community in particular.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that I consult my hon. Friends who are members of the European Assembly. The fact that I consult them does not mean that we reach agreement. One of the problems with the present structure in Europe is the difficulty that is experienced in reaching agreement. When we come to matters of constitutional change that are of importance to the United Kingdom, the result very often is a collection of strange bedfellows. I have never been ashamed of the group with which I keep company, whoever and whatever its members may be. I am content that the group is defending our unitary Parliament, the position of our monarch and all the things about which I care deeply.

Mr. Spearing: I shall be as brief as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), whose remarks I wish to take up. The hon. Gentleman has hit on one of the central dilemmas. The power of the monarch and of the Crown is affected because legislation which comes direct from Brussels does not pass through the House and does not receive Royal Assent. That means that the Crown is bypassed. It is possible that years ago Privy Councillors operating in this area would have been had under the law of praemunire but often people do not understand what is going on.
The irony is that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, having opened the conference centre in her name on the other side of Parliament square—

Mr. Foulkes: Elizabeth II of England.

Mr. Spearing: Account should always be taken of Scots susceptibilities, as they were in 1688.
It is ironic that the conference centre is going to be used for many discussions that will not be public. In effect, that will undermine the rights and privileges of this Parliament and of the Crown, especially in the next six months.

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Spearing: I must move on—

Mr. Dykes: The hon. Member had to give way because he must understand that his assertion is thoroughly irresponsible. As Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee on the EEC, he must consider carefully before making such reckless and irresponsible statements.
When Britain joined the European Community it was a treaty decision and all such treaty accessions have a limiting effect on our sovereignty. The idea that the monarch's intrinsic, residual powers are in any way reduced by the whole process is thoroughly misleading. All legislation of the Community, either by treaty accession or by direct examination—in this place through directives —is, ipso facto, approved by the House of Commons.

Mr. Spearing: I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but that was not the reason why I gave way. He is quite

right about my susceptibilities on the matter of representing the Scrutiny Committee. I am sure the hon. Member would agree — the Minister has given me an answer today that a Gymnic series of meetings are taking place in that building. Any Council decisions taken in Brussels—they are discussed informally outside—which are regulations, which he and I study each week, do not require, by legislation, Royal Assent. He is giving his assent to me in that respect, but in that respect the Crown is completely bypassed. I think that is a matter of fact, from which he cannot dissent. In the light of that, I would invite him—I am aware we are in Committee and I am sorry to divert it—to answer that point. If he can deny that the Crown is being bypassed by direct legislation from Brussels, whether Parliament is involved or not, he should say so. I believe that to be the fact. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has not risen, although I would like to debate this with him, so I shall proceed.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Spearing: No, I must proceed.
The question we have before us today is whether or not the Assembly/Parliament will have more power. I refer— as a sort of test — to the statement made by the Foreign Secretary on 23 April, 1986:
The new co-operation procedure will produce a greater awareness in council and Parliament of each other's views, but it will make no decisive change in the institutional balance because the last word remains with the Council."—[Official Report, 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 322.]
That is the text I wish to pursue, because I believe that even the Foreign Secretary is unaware of the difficulties which will ensue. The words which the right hon. and learned Gentleman used were carefully drafted, especially the word "decisive". On narrow grounds—the Minister will know what I mean—the Foreign Secretary is correct because, in theory, the Council may have the last word.
On 7 May, the Minister and I had some discussions about this in a public Select Committee and we had a slight misunderstanding about the matter. The Minister was right because, in procedural terms, the Council does have the final say.

Mrs. Chalker: indicated assent.

Mr. Spearing: The point is that the Council has a final say in entirely different circumstances. I invite the Minister to intervene at any time and say whether I have got this wrong.
At the moment, the Commission has to take account only of the opinion of the Assembly/Parliament. I call it that for convenience. It does not have to take account of anything it says. In those articles and legislation subject to the new procedure—of course, it is not the whole of the treaty of Rome — the Commission must take account, first of all, of the fact that it can get a majority through the Council and, secondly, that the Assembly may knock it back by an absolute majority. Therefore, before it starts to present its proposals to the Council, the Commission is in a new ball game.
As long as the majority of the Council agrees, the Commission can get legislation through, but it must be sure that the legislation will not be knocked back by a majority of the Assembly. As the parliamentary draftsmen, Whips and civil servants are constrained by the majority in this House, so the draftsmen of the Commission — before it gets going— will have to take account of the new constitution.
Certain legislation is subject to this second round procedure—it has not been described as such, but it is the second round. The answer I received from the Minister today is important as it relates to what constitutes the common position of the Council. Until now, everybody has said that the Council comes to a decision and makes its common position on legislation known.
The Minister stated:
The Council's common position will be determined by the member states in accordance with the relevant Treaty article as amended by the Single European Act. The common position will be drafted following discussion in the Council. We shall, as now, play our full part in these discussions and in establishing the common position which will be conveyed to the European Parliament by means of a Presidency communication containing the text of the common position.
In other words, the Council's view will not just be on the legislation as such; it will be on the legislation accompanied by a common position. New article 149 means that the European Parliament can propose amendments. Subsection (d) states that the Commission
shall, within a period of one month, re-examine the proposal on the basis of which the Council adopted its common position, by taking into account the amendments proposed by the European Parliament.
Therefore, the Commission can either change the proposal or, if it wishes, completely adopt it. Many hon. Members have suggested that the latter is the more likely procedure.
Subsection (e) states:
The Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall adopt the proposal as re-examined by the Commission.
Therefore, if the Assembly or Parliament, by an absolute majority, inserts amendments, which it is entitled to do, and the Commission adopts them, which it is entitled to do, the Council can adopt them by a complete qualifying majority. That means that even two member states cannot block the Council. As the Minister has not interrupted me, I assume that she gives her assent to this procedure.

Mrs. Chalker: indicated dissent.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Lady shakes her head; that is signally unfortunate, because I had invited her to interrupt at any stage if I had got it wrong. These are vital matters. I refer again to the phrase used by the Foreign Secretary:
it will make no decisive change in the institutional balance" —(Official Report, 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 322.]
It might not be decisive in the strict adjectival sense, but it will certainly be a decisive change in the balance. It is true that the Council can assert itself by unanimity, but that is a very different procedure from the present one. What the Foreign Secretary has done — I make no apology for saying so—is what he did many years ago in debate with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), then the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. In those debates the right hon. and learned Gentleman used phrases which implied one thing but which, on examination, meant something else.
It is clear that the balance of institutional influence and power will be changed, although the constitutional mechanisms for decisions may remain. Any other claim by the Government, the Minister or the Foreign Secretary is misleading the House and the British people. That is not just my view. I conclude by repeating the view of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in its conclusions in paragraph 50(ix):

Although the new 'co-operation procedure' leaves the final decision-taking power with the Council, there is, in our view, little doubt that if the Commission and the Assembly are in accord in respect of any particular item of legislation, the freedom of the Council to adopt a different position will be inevitably circumscribed as a result … the new procedures will therefore undoubtedly reduce the ability of individual Member States to pursue their national interests to the point of actually obstructing the progress of new legislation regarded as acceptable by the majority".
It is for those reasons that I support the amendment.

7 pm

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that we are discussing an important change in the balance of power. If this admirable debate has done nothing else, it has convinced the Committee and, I hope, the country that we are discussing matters of considerable significance. We have also flushed out the Government, who have been trying to pass off the Bill as some minor trivial amendment matter.
Only a few weeks ago, on 5 March 1986, my hon. Friend the Minister said, as reported in column 338 of the Official Report, that the changes that we are discussing are "modest in their legal scope". On Second Reading, she dismissed the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who had suggested that the changes meant an enhanced role for the European Parliament. She said:
That is a dangerous fallacy. That is not the position; life is not a zero sum game."—[Official Report, 23 April 1986; Vol. 96. c. 390.]
Whatever that hideous piece of Euro-jargon means, it probably characterises the effort made by some of the other Euro fanatics in the House to imply that we are discussing minute and trivial points.
I rather liked the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) when he said that the Bill should be renamed the European Concealment of Intentions Bill. However, I could have retorted that his speech might have been renamed the European Recantation of Past Mistakes speech. After all, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) elicited from him the confession that he had felt it necessary to vote in favour of the Bill that originally set up the European Assembly.

Mr. Foot: It was not the Bill that set up the Assembly, but the Bill that introduced direct elections to it.

Mr. Aitken: It is in any case the legislation that is the father of this present mistake.
In 1978 I was one of that relatively small band of hon. Members who, along with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), opposed that original legislation, because I felt in my bones—it did not need the wisdom of Solomon to do so—that it would be only a matter of time before directly elected members of the European Assembly became dissatisfied with its impotent and advisory status, and would come back seeking the red meat of legislative power. This legislation begins to realise those fears. The Bill's provisions mark a significant opening of the door towards legislative power for the European Assembly.
I have three points to make about the new legislative power of the European Assembly. The method is described with the somewhat euphemistic label "the co-operation procedure". It sounds harmless enough, but in reality the


co-operation procedure is a Trojan horse which will inflict many a painful defeat on Britain's national interests. It will begin the long-term decline of this Parliament's sovereign powers. The co-operation procedure means that the Council of Ministers will in future have to adopt certain legislation in co-operation with the European Assembly. The European Assembly can amend such legislation, and in order to overrule those amendments the Council of Ministers must reject them unanimously.
It is, of course, obvious that unanimity in the Council of Ministers is most unlikely. Apart from the endemic desire to divide and split within the Council of Ministers, the Italians are great supporters of more power for the European Parliament or Assembly, and rarely disagree with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) intervened with some philosophical thoughts on why the Italians feel that way. I happen to take a different view, which is that the political heirs of Cavour and Mazzini, who united a rabble of minor states, principalities and duchies less than 150 years ago, when there was no real tradition of democratic assemblies of Parliament, do not feel as some of us do, in our bones, for the traditions of a Parliament that has governed our country since the days of Simon de Montfort.
We care about parliamentary sovereignty. We understand it, and we do not want to see its powers eroded. We do not want to see this House being downgraded to the status of a county council.

Mr. Cash: Some misleading analogies have been drawn between the convergence of the city states and principalities of Germany or Italy and what is going on in any move towards a federal Europe. There is a world of difference between combining nations that each has a separate and deep heritage and combining countries that have a common heritage. There is a world of difference between a pan-European convergence towards federalism and a convergence within each of the existing countries, as happened in the case of Germany or Italy. It is important to emphasise that point.

Mr. Aitken: That is a profound point, and I basically agree with it. In the jargon of the European Parliament or Assembly, it is easy to forget some of the big differences of heritage and tradition. There is a danger that any fears are brushed aside as exaggerations. In this case, it is said that everything will be all right because the Council of Ministers will still have the last word in disputes with the European Parliament or Assembly. Under the Bill, it is technically true that if the almost inevitable squabble occurs, the European Parliament's amendments can be deemed eventually not to have been adopted. It would be a sort of lobster quadrille, with two steps forward and two steps backwards and not much happening.
That is the optimist's view of how small these changes will be. But once the legislation has been enacted the European Assembly or Parliament will have much more muscle. It will be able to put immense pressure on the Council of Ministers to bow to its wishes. It is bound to use that muscle to push its power down the road of greater legislative influence. Indeed, the warning signs have already gone up in big clear letters. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) said in

his admirable speech, the European Assembly passed a resolution on 16 January 1986 which is worth quoting. It declared that the European Assembly would
exploit to the very limit the possibilities offered by the single Act and instructs its Political Affairs Committee to ensure that this is done; reaffirms that it will pursue its endeavours in the spirit of its draft treaty of Union with the aim of a genuine political and economic union between the states of the Community.
There could not be a clearer sign than that.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to remove the new power given in article 8, which enables the European Parliament to veto new members of the Community or new association agreements with third countries. I do not like that power, because it effectively allows it to blackball new candidates for the Common Market. Turkey is a prime candidate for admission to the EEC. A lot of wrangling is already going on. Greece is battling to exclude Turkey, for reasons that have little to do with the interests of the Community. As a result, it is hard for Turkey even to obtain association status, let alone entry to the Common Market. We have moved a long way from the days when Greece tried to seek entry to NATO. There is a nice story that, when Mr. Attlee was in charge of the Cabinet, a long discussion took place. At the end of the discussion Attlee said, "I fought against the Turks myself at Gallipoli — good fighters, rather have them on our side than against us"—and they were in NATO. It will be much worse if this goes through. Already we are hearing talk of a southern alliance of some of the farming states of Portugal, Greece and Spain. They could easily unite in a parliamentary sense to block the entry of Turkey. I am, therefore, against this power being granted.
On the nomenclature, whether we should call the organisation an assembly or change its name to a parliament, I was fascinated by, and agreed with, the rather romantic, almost mystical, musings of the right hon. Member for South Down when he enlarged on the true meaning and nature of a parliament. Coming down to something that we would all understand, when we call ourselves Members of Parliament and with some pride put "MP" after our names, we all know what we are talking about, and our fellow countrymen know what it means, whereas the letters MEP mean almost nothing in terms of clear understanding. I have always thought that the "E" stood for emptiness.
The danger, I believe, is that for the first time we are here giving the possibility of real meaning and real power, and an MEP will be somebody who can do something in terms of legislative power that will change the status of this sovereign Parliament. That is why I am against it.

Mr. Ron Leighton: The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who seems to have left the Chamber momentarily, was critical of, and appeared to ridicule, the phrase "a self-recognising entity" when applied to the British people. I think that that is an extremely good description. We all recognise ourselves as being members of a political unit. The proof of that is when there is an election. Sometimes we win elections and sometimes we lose. Losing is painful, but we do not question it. We accept that we are members of a political unit and that we have lost, and we hope that we shall win next time. We accept it, even though we consider that the policies of the party that has defeated us are damaging to


our interests because that is the democratic wish and decision of the political entity to which we belong. It is a question of loyalty.
I wonder whether that loyalty and the recognition of entity could conceivably be transferred to some great amorphous group of a dozen nations if an assembly or parliament not elected by us or removable by us were to carry out policies that we thought were damaging to us. As one hon. Member said, if we take this view, does it mean that we are superior to other nations? Of course it does not. I am certain that the French see themselves as a recognisable entity, but I do not think that the French would transfer those feelings of loyalty to this other body.
The first reason why I wish to support the amendments is that the Single European Act, in its preamble, states:
the European Parliament, elected by universal suffrage, is an indispensable means of expression
of the wish of the people of Europe. That is not true. Why should we be invited to support a statement that is apparently untrue? If it were indispensable, people would have voted in the election. What proportion of British people voted in the European Assembly elections? I think it was less than one quarter. I am certain that in Newham many voters have never heard of the so-called European Assembly, they are not interested in it, and did not vote for it. The idea that it is an indispensable means of expression is nonsense.
I do not think that the so-called European Parliament will ever be a focus of the loyalty of the British people. We were invited to give it extra powers. Where will those powers come from? They cannot be conjured out of thin air. If the European Parliament is to have extra powers, they have to come from us. We will have fewer powers in the Westminster Parliament, as will be the case in the other national Parliaments in the Community. That is bad, not because it is taking away powers from us as individuals, but because it is taking away the rights of the people of this country, exercised through us. That is what is being undermined. This institution, Assembly, or so-called Parliament is not elected by us or removable by us. As powers leave us to go to that Assembly, we should become something rather like a county council with limited delegated functions. We would be transferring powers to untried institutions outside this country beyond our control and not answerable to us.
7.15 pm
Our political freedom and liberties will be undermined. Our sovereignty will be damaged. I know that many people think that it is old-fashioned to use the word sovereignty and that it is somehow a reactionary idea. I do not accept that. This country gave sovereignty to all the ex-colonies of the British Empire—it was then held to be a very progressive thing to do. Now we are being asked to give up our own. Sovereignty is the right of people to run their own country in their own way. It is the right to democratic parliamentary self-government. There is nothing reactionary about that. It is the most precious possession that we have. Ask those countries that do not have it and they will testify to how valuable democratic parliamentary self-government is.
Our present liberties and freedoms have been fought for and achieved by the struggles of our forefathers going back to Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Chartists, the Reform Bill and women's suffrage. We have inherited these rights and liberties as Members of this Parliament.
We are the custodians of those rights and liberties. We are responsible for handing them on to future generations We certainly have no mandate to surrender or abandon these freedoms to institutions outside this country, not elected by us and not responsible to us, and I do not think we would be forgiven if we did so.
What we should be doing is dispersing the institutions of government to the regions, bringing them closer to ordinary people, making them more responsible to ordinary people, and encouraging the participation of ordinary people. However, this is a giant stride in the opposite direction, making the institutions more distant, less representative and more inhuman. It would be a severe blow to our parliamentary democracy. I agree that in future, if constituents come to us to complain about this or that, we will have to say, "It is no good coming to us, you must go and see Herr somebody or Senor somebody on the continent because the powers are there." People come here to lobby us. I sometimes feel a little cynical about that. What do they think they are achieving by lobbying us? But it is right and proper that they do so. Think of the situation if they felt that it was not worth coming to the British Parliament. Where would they go?
Matters will be decided, not here in the sovereign Parliament of Westminster, but in Brussels or Strasbourg. Is that healthy or right, or the road we want to go along? I am certain that it is not. It is not a point of view that I support.

Mr. Marlow: I wish to say a few words first about amendment No. 3, which seeks to delete from the Bill the power that will be given to the European Assembly, or Parliament, to veto the application of new members to the European Community. If each and every country, national Government and Parliament in the Community wishes another country to join the European Community, why should the European Assembly, or Parliament, have any status or view on the issue? My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) suggested that it would have a black ball power. I think that it might he more sinister than that. It would give the power of blackmail to the European Assembly. It would allow it to say, "Yes, you may all want it, but we do not want it. We will agree to what you want, provided that you give us something that we want." That is why, in a nutshell, I oppose the granting of this power.
We are debating a Bill which the Government said they did not want and which the Prime Minister said was unnecessary. If the House were to accept these amendments, I believe that we should be doing the Government a service. The Government do not want the Bill, and the House does not want the Bill. Let us throw it out.
The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), will tell the House about the advantages that the Bill will confer. She may be able to persuade the House that it should accept the Bill without these amendments. Let us wait to hear what she has to say. The treaty was ratified by this Government and the other Governments in the Community. I am sure that the Government will accept the will of the House. If the House wishes to delete various aspects of the Bill, I believe that the Government will be quite content for that to happen. The powers that are being taken away are not the powers of the Government, but the powers of this House. Therefore, it is this House that should decide.
I take as my text some quotations from the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities:
Any enhancement of the importance of the European Parliament will tend to shift the balance of Parliamentary responsibility from the Member States to Strasbourg …the United Kingdom Parliament exercises no control over Community legislation other than through the voice and vote of United Kingdom Ministers in the Council of Ministers…any weakening of the power of United Kingdom Ministers is felt equally by the United Kingdom Parliament…The powers of the United Kingdom Parliament will be weakened by the Single European Act.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) referred to the referendum. There was no debate or discussion then about weakening the powers of this House,and there was nothing in the Queen's Speech about bringing before the House a Bill to reduce the powers of this House. There has been no suggestion that because a referendum was held when we joined the Community another referendum should be held on this massive change in the powers of this House compared with the powers of the Assembly. The Government have not put the case before the public. They have not gone to the public, in glorious technicolour, and said, "Yes, there will be a change in the powers of the House of Commons and the powers of your Parliament will be reduced." That has not been said, loud and clear, and it is up to Back Benchers, as the Government are not doing it, to say it.
The most important function of this House is to secure democratic control and accountability. The amendments would secure democratic control. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who speaks for the Liberal party on these matters, said that nothing happens in this House, that we control nothing, that this is an elective dictatorship and that this House does not matter, so why should it matter if these powers are given to the European Assembly?
In a previous Session of this Parliament the Government introduced a Bill which abolished the metropolitan counties. We decided that those creatures of this Parliament should be done away with. It was a major Bill and there were major debates upon it. There was a Second Reading, a Committee stage, part of which took place on the Floor of the House, a Report stage and a Third Reading. The Bill went to another place. Major amendments were made to the Bill. It was a major constitutional issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) looked upon it as the greatest constitutional issue of the day. Where is he now?
We decided, within our powers, to do away with those institutions—those creatures of this House. This Bill takes powers away from both the British people and this House and gives them to the European Assembly. It increases the power, role and significance of the Commission, the European Court of Justice and other countries within the European Community — small countries which have votes, in majority voting, which are beyond the relevance of their size. Is this not a big constitutional issue? If the Local Government Bill was an issue of major constitutional significance, what is this? That Bill took up weeks and months of parliamentary time. This much more significant Bill is expected to go through the House virtually on the nod. The heritage of

our people and the power and influence of this nation's democracy are being cast on one side in three or four short parliamentary days.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) waxed eloquent when he told us about the distinction between a Parliament and an Assembly. He pointed out that there is a difference between a Parliament and an Assembly. We know that there is a difference between a Parliament and an Assembly, because when the European Assembly was established the first thing that it sought to do was to call itself a Parliament. It arrogated unto itself a title that had not been given to it, because it knew that that title had greater significance, and by arrogating that title to itself it knew that it would have more power.
The European Assembly, or Parliament, has a very important role to play. European legislation is very complex. It is formulated by the Commission. The Assembly, or Parliament, is co-located with the Commission. It knows the Commissioners and it works alongside the Commission building. During the formulation of Community legislation the Assembly, or Parliament, exercises a valuable and worthwhile influence. That is right and proper. However, the Assembly, or Parliament, also has ambition. If we remember our "Julius Caesar", Brutus and his colleagues "did" Julius Caesar, not because they were worried about his role or about whether he was doing his job, but because he became ambitious. That is what this House should be worried about. We know what has happened in the past. If we pass this Bill, do we know what will happen in the future?
Let us concern ourselves with the democratic control that is exercised by this House. The European constitution is different, complex and developing. We are unaware of so many things that are going on, and so many things are set out in such a way that we are expected and supposed to be unaware of them. People do not want us to know what is happening. They want a fait accompli. They want things to be forced upon us that we cannot control.
How will the Bill, without these amendments, affect our democratic control? First, it will give more power to the Assembly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it".]. Hon Members on the Opposition Front Bench think that this issue is of such small significance that time is important and that we should wrap up the debate, but this is one of the most significant issues that has been discussed and debated on the Floor of this House. I am sorry that in the position of responsibility that he holds the hon. Member for Motherwell. North (Mr. Hamilton) does not understand that.
Any institution assesses an issue in various ways, as we do — Left versus Right, special interests and regional differences—but the Assembly has another ingredient. It is concerned simply for itself. It is concerned for its own power. The Assembly may be democratically elected, but on certain issues the only decision that it will make will be based on whether it enhances the prestige, reputation, power and significance of the European Assembly. Is that democratic?
7.30 pm
We have already discovered this week that the European Court of Justice can make decisions about social payments made by individual nation states within the Community. We never anticipated that. As we increase the powers of the other institutions within the Community, we


shall also increase the powers of the European Court of Justice. Laws will be made and decisions taken by this politic court, not by our political forum.
The preamble to the Act says that it will:
transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union.
This political court will use the preamble in making its decisions, over which we shall have no power, and to enforce them and move us towards European union. As many hon. Members have said, if the powers of the Commission and the Assembly are increased, our Ministers will have their powers reduced.
With regard to majority voting, hon. Members have not noted so far that we shall have 10 votes within the majority voting system, whereas Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Ireland taken together will have 28 votes. Yet their populations are smaller than ours. Every Irish citizen has five times as many votes in that institution as every British citizen. Is that democracy and fairness? All those small countries together can block measures going through the Community. We cannot do so, with a greater population. We and Germany together, each with our greater populations, cannot block things that they can.
There will be ganging up by the smaller nations, who have always been in favour of federalism, because that is how they achieve influence and power. Those nations will gang up. The institutions of the Community will gang up. What power will our Ministers have then?
My hon. Friend the Minister will be addressing the House very soon. I say to her that our one safeguard is the national veto. My hon. Friend owes it to the House to explain just how secure that veto will be under the new powers. My hon. Friend owes it to the House to tell us what influence the European Court of Justice will have under these arrangements on our national power of veto within the European Community.
We are being asked tonight to give more powers to the European Assembly — that tower of Babel. The only reports that we get from it deal with how its members wish to spend more public money for their personal and private extravagance. We are being asked to give more power to the institutions of the European Community. How have they used that power so far? What has happened to the financial mechanism that was to keep expenditure under control? What has happened to the common agricultural policy, which was taking 60 per cent. of Community expenditure when we joined? We were promised that it would take 40 per cent. of the budget, but now it takes 80 per cent. How can we trust them to make our laws and look after the interests of this country?
This is an important constitutional issue and I hope that hon. Members will support the amendments.

Mrs. Chalker: For the sake of right hon. and hon. Members—I understand the desire of the Committee to have two votes on the amendment — I shall draw together these issues as clearly, factually and speedily as I can. I shall not touch on issues that do not arise from the amendments.
In respect of the co-operation procedure between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, which is covered by amendment No. 2, it may help the Committee if I explain again what is involved. There have been many wild and factually incorrect assertions. Therefore, I shall tell the Committee exactly what is involved.
The European Parliament already has the right to be consulted under some 17 articles of the treaty. The Single European Act provides in chapter II for 10 articles— five in the EEC treaty and five new ones—where the procedure will be changed.
The co-operation procedure is designed to enable the Parliament to make its views known, and for the Council to take account of them before positions are set in concrete. The 10 articles to which I have referred are mostly measures affecting the internal market. Under the 10 articles, when a proposal goes to the Council, it will discuss it and adopt a common position. Thereafter, if the European Parliament votes for amendments to the proposal by an absolute majority of all its members, then both the Council and the Commission will have to take account of those amendments.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) has said, it is highly unlikely that every Member will be there, given the performance of that Parliament to date. There does indeed have to be an absolute majority of all the members. Where the Commission agrees to change its proposal to accommodate the Parliament's amendments, then, as now—and I say this twice over — the Council can further change the Commission's proposal unanimously. It is for the Council to do so acting unanimously.
Where the Council accepts the revised proposal, then, as now, it will vote according to the relevant article of the treaty. That would be done not by unanimity, but by qualified majority. However, if the European Parliament rejects altogether the common position of the Council, which it can do only by absolute majority, the Council can still adopt the proposal unanimously. At present. that is required for many of the Council acts, such as those under article 100.
During the debate, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have expressed the fear of an alliance between the Commission and the European Parliament, or that. the Parliament will reject the Council's common position and that it will then be difficult to achieve the unanimity required to push the proposal through, especially if there is an alliance between one member state and the European Parliament.
Were that to happen, we should he no worse off than we are now with the current requirement for unanimity that some hon. Members wish to retain. In practice, I cannot see that that will be a real risk. For a start, to reject or amend a proposal, the Parliament will have to muster an absolute majority of all its members—260 out of the 518. In practice, very few proposals before the European Parliament command an absolute majority in favour.
Secondly, we are talking about proposals that will have originated with the Commission and on which Parliament will have already given an opinion. Unless the Council has changed the Commission's proposal out of all recognition —which it can do only unanimously under the existing treaty rules—then the Parliament will be looking at a proposal that may already reflect its view. It is much more likely that the Parliament will propose amendments rather than reject proposals altogether. Where it proposes amendments, the position remains as it is now, as I have explained.
However, if the Commission and the Council have laboured hard on a proposal that can command majority support among member states, the Commission will not lightly accept amendments that could destroy its majority


and lead to a proposal lapsing through lack of support. In this context, it is important to remember that the Council is under no obligation whatsoever to accept Parliament's amendments. There is no question of those amendments going through unless the Council votes against them unanimously. They go through only if there is a qualified majority in favour of them. If there is no qualified majority, the proposal will lapse after three months. That applies only under those articles that require a qualified majority.

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Chalker: I have been very patient throughout the debate, and I am reaching the end of my remarks.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Michael Shaw): Order. The hon. Lady is not giving way.

Mrs. Chalker: The European Parliament is in a position to influence proposals, and that position is clarified by the Single European Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) asked what would happen in the event of a dispute between the Commission and the Parliament and who would be the arbiter. My right hon. Friend will have appreciated from my account of the co-operation procedure that no arbiter is needed. The Council can take its decision whether or not the Commission and the European Parliament disagree. After one month the Council can act whether or not the Commission has reacted to the opinion of the European Parliament. That is the exact position.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) spoke about the three main thrusts of the debate, although it was very early in the debate. I have written, as hon. Members have already quoted, on the issue of scrutiny; and the Government have, as the hon. Gentleman knows, accepted the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee on improved arrangements for scrutiny.

Mr. Spearing: I appreciate the careful drafting and words that the hon. Lady has just used. However, I do not think that anything that she has said is incompatible with what I quite carefully said earlier. If she is challenging what I have said, would she say so now or perhaps look at the draft and let me know by letter? The hon. Lady is trying to say that nothing has changed. If it has not changed, why is clause 3(4) telling us that there is more power to the Assembly?

Mrs. Chalker: I will look through the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I have stated the exact position as clearly as I know how. I shall compare his remarks with what I have said, and, if necessary, write to him. I shall be coming to the hon. Gentleman's latter point shortly.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and other hon. Members were worried about the reduced power of the Council. The power of the Council as the decision-taking body in the Community remains as before. The Council will have the last word on all decisions, and it is in no way bound to accept amendments proposed by the European Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton drew attention to the vote in the European Parliament which he said expressed its

determination to exploit the new procedures. That vote was 206 to 63, as one hon. Member commented. To have any proposed amendment considered, the European Parliament would have to do a lot better than that. Thereafter, such proposed amendments will not be accepted unless the Commission adopts them as part of its proposal and unless the Council votes to accept them.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley also talked about the Council of Ministers' power to block. The Council can only change a proposal of the Commission by unanimity. There is no change in that. That is exactly as it is at present. We are talking not about co-decision with the European Parliament, but cooperation in areas where we want to see progress, especially the internal market, which is the subject of our next debate, where the European Parliament has consistently voted for progress. That is what we also are seeking to achieve.
There have been many challenges as to why all this is necessary, and it has been said that it is not necessary. I refer my right hon. and hon. Friends to what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Committee, because that was challenged by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that we had earlier thought progress could be achieved without treaty amendment, but that we had secured our objectives in the limited treaty amendments which we succeeded in negotiating. He said:
So this is a way of achieving what is necessary for Britain in a…good way.
I would go further. Other hon. Members have said that the Prime Minister should not have been involved. It was the Prime Minister who negotiated the changes to the treaty. She commended them to the House as an important step towards enabling this country to realise more fully the benefits of membership of the European Community. I hope that my hon. Friends who were quoting the Prime Minister in their support of these amendments realise that she has taken their concern into account and come to this conclusion at the end of that consideration.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mrs. Chalker: I will not give way.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. It is quite clear that the hon. Lady is not giving way. Hon. Members must resume their seats.

Mrs. Chalker: I am trying to help the Committee, because it wishes to move—

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Sir Michael. Unless we are able to get to our feet to invite my hon. Friend to give way, we have no opportunity—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. As I said before, the hon. Lady clearly is not going to give way and she has indicated as much. Therefore, hon. Members must resume their seats.

Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Sir Michael. Could you tell us how we are to know that my hon. Friend is not giving way? I did not see her give any indication.

The Temporary Chairman: I informed the hon. Gentleman.

Mrs. Chalker: I shall now turn to amendment No. 3, to which a number of hon. Members have spoken. That amendment deals with the question of the European Parliament's power over new accessions.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mrs. Chalker: The opinion of the European Parliament is already required on new accessions. Under the new procedure, new accessions will go to the European Parliament for its assent. The consent of this and every other national Parliament in the Community will still be required for new member states to join the Community. Therefore, there is no change in the role of national Parliaments in approving new accessions.

Sir Edward du Cann: On a point of order, Mr. Leadbitter. I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend the Minister, but I wonder whether you would give us some assistance. I appreciate that you have only just come into the Chair and did not hear the earlier exchanges. My understanding is that we are in Committee. My understanding of the Committee stage is that it is customary for there to be a good deal of give and take. I know that the Committee wants to make progress, but this is the only opportunity that Back Benchers have of putting questions to my hon. Friend the Minister on matters which are of supreme constitutional importance. We all agree about that. Surely it is in accordance with the best traditions of the House of Commons that if there are doubts the Minister who is replying should give the opportunity for misunderstandings to be rectified. Is that not the normal procedure in Committee?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Ted Leadbitter): The Chair recognises the traditions of the House of Commons. Plainly, if the hon. Lady or any right hon. or hon. Member indicates that there is no wish to give way, it gives other hon. Members the right to come back when the hon. Lady or other right hon. or hon. Members sit down. In Committee, the traditions of the House are upheld, and the right hon. Gentleman will rise when the hon. Lady has finished.

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Leadbitter. I hope that I am not making a sexist remark, but sometimes ladies change their minds. If the Chair assumes complete consistency, it does not give them the right to change their minds in a way which is not known to males.

The Temporary Chairman: There is no change of mind. It is traditional in Committee that if a right hon. or hon. Member wishes to rise on the subject matter of the amendment, he is free to do so.

Mrs. Chalker: I do not want to upset my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Budgen). I will give him his sexist remark and give way.

Mr. Budgen: I will wait.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: How can the hon. Lady say that the powers of Parliament to agree to the admission of new members are not changed when this Bill gives the European Assembly the right to veto the decisions of national Parliaments? In other words, even if this Parliament. the French Parliament, the Dutch Parliament and all the others agree to Turkey coming in, if the European Assembly says no, then, under this new Bill, and

only under this new Bill, it will not happen. Does the Minister accept that that is the position and that there is a fundamental change in power?

Mrs. Chalker: This Parliament will continue to have its existing role in approving new accessions.

Mr. Taylor: It could be overruled.

Mrs. Chalker: The overruling would be by the national Parliaments of the individual countries. Article 237 deals with the accession of new member states. Article 238 deals with association agreements with third countries or groups of countries. Such agreements would be concluded by the Council under those articles of the EEC treaty. That requires the assent of the European Parliament by an absolute majority of its members. It refers not just to those present and voting; it is the 260. At present, under both articles, the European Parliament is consulted, but the Council has no obligation to act. The consultation still takes place without any obligation. The new articles give the right to approve or disapprove new accessions or association agreements.
The Members of the European Parliament are elected by the member states. They are not elected by some foreign body. They are elected by members of the European Community states. That does not change the power of this Parliament, which still has to continue to approve new accessions.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend has prayed in aid the support of the Prime Minister. Has not the Prime Minister reluctantly agreed to a package, part of which had the disadvantage of having to agree to the Single European Act? I thought that the Prime Minister believed and hoped that the advantage to this country would be a system of firm financial control. It is not possible to consider that package without explaining to the Committee whether, in my hon. Friend's opinion, the advantage of firm financial control has been achieved. Many Conservative Members believe that the package has been entirely disadvantageous. We have the Single European Act, but the hopes of financial control have proved to be nothing but a dream.

Mrs. Chalker: I know how concerned my hon. Friend is about the financial package. I understand his concern because I share it. In budgetary matters we must, and shall, remain within the 1·4 per cent—

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mrs. Chalker: I should like to complete my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred to a written answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury. He stated:
We estimate that the highest rate of VAT contribution for 1986 implied by the Council's Second Reading budget of last December is 1·22 per cent. The actual rates for the year"—
this is the part my hon. Friend did not quote—
will depend on the outcome of discussions on a new 1986 budget which will begin after the European Court has delivered judgment on the 1986 budget dispute."—[Official Report, 23 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 531.]
My hon. Friend knows that we are awaiting the judgment of the European Court on the 1986 budget. Until then, it will not be clear exactly what the figures are. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister of State could not give my hon. Friend the definitive and final answer he seemed


to suggest he should. There will not be an increase in that 1·4 per cent. ceiling before 1988. Any change in that ceiling could be achieved only by the unanimous agreement of all member states. I have said, on behalf of the British Government, that that will not change. Therefore, there will not be unanimous agreement of all member states, and the 1·4 per cent. limit will remain until 1988. To change anything in that period would require unanimous agreement.
I can honestly assure my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East and for Wolverhampton, South-West that, whilst I share their concern about the budgetary position, we are determined to reduce not only agricultural surpluses but the costs in order to manage within the total budget to which we are committed.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend and other hon. Members referred to the Prime Minister and her view regarding the concept of federalism. Does my hon. Friend agree that on 5 December 1985 the Prime Minister made it abundantly clear? She said:
I do not believe in the concept of a united states of Europe, nor do I believe that it would ever be attainable. The whole history is completely different, so I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that matter. I am constantly saying that I wish that they would talk less about European and political union. The terms are not understood in this country. In so far as they are understood over there, they mean a good deal less than some people over here think they mean.—[ Official Report, 5 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 432.]

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend has made a quotation that I intended to use a little later. I am grateful that he has saved me the trouble of doing so. I shall refer to the other amendments, otherwise hon. Members will be—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mrs. Chalker: Mr. Leadbitter, I feel that I have given way as much as other hon. Members wish me to do. What I need to do now is to comment briefly—

Mr. Marlow: Tell us about the—

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend has a very high voice at times. I can hear him over the murmurs of approval for what I have just said.
The benefits of co-operation are to get a better and speedier movement of the things which are necessary, not only for this country but for other countries in the Community. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) spoke about amendment No. 13 concerning association agreements. The Bill, and through it the Single European Act, gives the European Parliament a new opportunity — I have never said otherwise — to play a constructive role regarding association agreements without diminishing the role of the Westminster Parliament or any other national Parliament. It is most unlikely that the European Parliament would wish to hold up association agreements on which the European Parliament had been consulted, because that would damage the relationships which it is constantly seeking to improve.
This has been a somewhat lengthy debate. The problems which many hon. Members see are very much more matters of their imagination than facts.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow spoke of his anxiety regarding amendment No. 45. There is a good reason for drafting the subsection as it is. It is necessary

to ensure that former and present Members of the European Parliament who served while the institution was called an Assembly rather than the European Parliament continue to receive the pensions payable to them under the European Assembly (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979, as amended by the Parliamentary Pensions Act 1984. Without subsection (3), which, in the hon. Gentleman's eyes, is retrospective on the day that subsections (1) and (2) come into force, all the references will be to the Parliament, and the previous service of a representative to the Assembly would not count towards his pension. He would then receive a much lower pension. He would not receive the return for which he had contributed. That is the reason for that wording.
8 pm
The hon. Member for Walthamstow asked me about the royal prerogative. There is no change in the exercise of the royal prerogative. Any agreements that now require the approval of the House will continue to require that approval in future. We are talking about agreements not between this country alone and another country, but involving the whole Community, and it makes sense for the European Parliament to be involved. Such agreements will still require the approval of every member state in accordance with its constitutional procedures.
Other hon. Members have raised a number of questions and I have tried to cover them, but, in the light of the debate, I cannot see the fallacy that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) put before us. The Single European Act adds to the opportunity of the European Parliament to play a constructive role. That is what we have all sought. We have sought to move business faster. Because this involves a change in the powers of the European Parliament, the approval of the House is required in accordance with section 6(1) of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, which provides:
No treaty which provides for any increase in the powers of the Assembly shall be ratified by the United Kingdom unless it has been approved by an Act of Parliament.
Those changes do not cut across the rights of national Parliaments. The Westminster Parliament, like any other national Parliament, will still have the last word in assenting to new accessions. National Parliaments still have the last word in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Rogers: No.

Mrs. Chalker: I know that the hon. Gentleman could not be here for all of the debate. I do not blame him for that. That is no criticism of him.

Mr. Rogers: I was in the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill.

Mrs. Chalker: The Council of Ministers has the last word.
The subsections which have been debated in the past three and a bit hours bring the term "Parliament", which has been used in official and legal practice, into line with usage since 1962. It would be self-defeating if we were to accept amendment No. 51 or others of the same ilk because we would partially allow in the long title some cases of previous usage to carry on. That would result in confusion. The wording of the Bill has been designed to sweep up all possible references.
I remind the Committee that, in the last and in previous European elections, all parties used the term "European


Parliament". We do not want confusion between the two terms, European Parliament and European Assembly. I very much agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on Second Reading, that it is
extraordinary that, so long after joining the European Community, we are still arguing about whether the institution should be called an assembly or a parliament."—[Official Report, 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 354.]
It is not an argument in which the country as a whole has any interest. The organisation is universally known as the European Parliament. It is directly and democratically elected. It does not make legislation, and there is nothing in the Bill which will cause it to make legislation. It therefore makes sense for the treaty to reflect common usage and to change our law to avoid any confusion.
We have had a long debate on these amendments. It has been useful for right hon. and hon. Members to air their views, but I believe that we should now conclude our deliberations. I advise the Committee that none of the amendments in the group is acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Marlow: I asked my hon. Friend the Minister whether she would address herself to the Luxembourg compromise and the power of the veto. She said that she was capable of changing her mind and answering questions later. Will she give the Committee the security that the veto will continue to exist and that the Luxembourg compromise will be safe? Will she assure the Committee that, if the Luxembourg compromise is tampered with in future, she will bring the Bill before the House for consideration again?

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Leadbitter. I see that a member of the Whips' Office is near you. I hope that you will not allow a vote on this issue until my hon. Friend the Minister has answered the point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). This is a Committee stage. If the Government are not prepared easily and courteously to answer questions put to them, they are bound to suffer the disadvantage that will arise if the Committee does not wish the measure to proceed to a vote. I hope that these points will be very much in your mind when you decide whether to receive the advice from the Whips' Office

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member has made an assumption. I understand why he has made it. There is some anxiety to deal with the business before the Committee in a manner approved and accepted by it. I give the assurance that this Chariman will comply wholly and strictly with the Standing Orders that control the Committee. No one will influence my rulings.

Mrs. Chalker: I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that I said at the beginning that I would concentrate on those amendments that were before the Committee because I believed that that would meet the convenience of the Committee.
The question of the Luxembourg compromise has been raised before, and it is bound to come up in later groups of amendments. The Luxembourg compromise is not a legal rule. It is not affected by the Bill in any way. I therefore believe that we should deal with it in detail at the point at which the matter comes up.

Mr. Bill Walker: I rise because, if I understand what my hon. Friend said, she may deal with my contribution later. She has not referred to my speech or to the direct questions that I put to her.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided:. Ayes 132, Noes 202.

Division No. 235]
[8.10 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Leighton, Ronald


Ashton, Joe
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
McCartney, Hugh


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Barnett, Guy
McKelvey, William


Barron, Kevin
McNamara, Kevin


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
McTaggart, Robert


Bell, Stuart
McWilliam, John


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Madden, Max


Bermingham, Gerald
Marek, Dr John


Bidwell, Sydney
Marlow, Antony


Blair, Anthony
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Boyes, Roland
Martin, Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Maxton, John


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Michie, William


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Mikardo, Ian


Buchan, Norman
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Budgen, Nick
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Caborn, Richard
Moate, Roger


Campbell, Ian
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Nellist, David


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
O'Neill, Martin


Clarke, Thomas
Park, George


Clay, Robert
Parry, Robert


Clelland, David Gordon
Pavitt, Laurie


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Pike, Peter


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Corbett, Robin
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Radice, Giles


Craigen, J. M.
Randall, Stuart


Crowther, Stan
Raynsford, Nick


Dalyell, Tam
Redmond, Martin


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Robertson, George


Deakins, Eric
Rogers, Allan


Dormand, Jack
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Dubs, Alfred
Rowlands, Ted


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Sheerman. Barry


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Short, Mrs R.fWhampt'n NE)


Fields, T. (L 'pool Broad Gn)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Fisher, Mark
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Snape, Peter


Foster, Derek
Soley, Clive


Foulkes, George
Spearing, Nigel


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


George, Bruce
Straw, Jack


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Gould, Bryan
Torney, Tom


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Wareing, Robert


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Welsh, Michael


Heffer, Eric S.
White, James


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Winnick, David


Home Robertson, John
Woodall, Alec


Hoyle, Douglas
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)



Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Tellers for the Ayes:


John, Brynmor
Mr. Don Dixon and


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Mr. Allen Adams.






NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hunter, Andrew


Alton, David
Irving, Charles


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Jackson, Robert


Amess, David
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Ancram, Michael
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Arnold, Tom
Johnston, Sir Russell


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Baldry, Tony
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Banks, Robert (Harrogatej
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Benyon, William
Kennedy, Charles


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Key, Robert


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Buck, Sir Antony
Knowles, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Knox, David


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lang, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Latham, Michael


Cash, William
Lawler, Geoffrey


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Lawrence, Ivan


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lester, Jim


Colvin, Michael
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Coombs, Simon
Lilley, Peter


Cope, John
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Corrie, John
Lord, Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
McCrindle, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Dorrell, Stephen
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Dunn, Robert
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Durant, Tony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fallon, Michael
Madel, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Major, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Malins, Humfrey


Forman, Nigel
Marland, Paul


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Forth, Eric
Maude, Hon Francis


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Freeman, Roger
Meadowcroft, Michael


Galley, Roy
Mellor, David


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Merchant, Piers


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Goodlad, Alastair
Monro, Sir Hector


Gorst, John
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gow, Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Grant, Sir Anthony
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Neubert, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Nicholls, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Norris, Steven


Hampson, Dr Keith
Onslow, Cranley


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Phillip


Harvey, Robert
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hayes, J.
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hayward, Robert
Pawsey, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hickmet, Richard
Portillo, Michael


Hicks, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Price, Sir David


Hind, Kenneth
Raffan, Keith


Hirst, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Rhodes James, Robert


Holt, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hordern, Sir Peter
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howard, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Howells, Geraint
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy





Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thurnham, Peter


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Trippier, David


Shersby, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Silvester, Fred
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Sims, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waddington, David


Spencer, Derek
Wall, Sir Patrick


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Wallace, James


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watts, John


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Whitfield, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wood, Timothy


Temple-Morris, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Terlezki, Stefan
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter



Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Mr. Gerald Malone and


Thorne, Neil (Ilord S)
Mr. Peter Lloyd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Marlow: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 13, after 'Communities)', insert
'but not Article 15 thereof".

The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 1, line 13, after 'Communities)', insert
'but not paragraph 1 of Article 16 thereof.
No. 8, in page 1, line 13, after 'Communities)', insert
'but not Article 19 thereof.
No. 15, in page 1, line 13, after 'Communities)', insert
'but not Article 13 thereof'.
No. 18, in page 1, line 13, after 'Communities)', insert
'but not paragraph 3 of Article 100A inserted by Article 18 thereof'.
No. 49, in page 1, line 13, after 'Communities)', insert
'but not Article 18 thereof".

Mr. Marlow: These amendments are to do with the internal market. My hon. Friend the Minister said in the debate on the last group of amendments that there are great benefits for the United Kingdom in freeing the internal market so that we can get some of the advantages for our services, our insurance industry and various other areas of United Kingdom entrepreneurial activity which so far have been baulked by other countries and institutions within the Community. However, the issues before us are somewhat wider than that. Although we all seek the advantages that the Minister hopes for, we must look very carefully at how the Bill approaches the internal market.
The purpose of amendment No. 5, which is in my name, is to delete article 15. Article 15 is by way of being an escape clause. It means that if rules, regulations or directives are introduced into the Community and some countries cannot put up with them, that should be taken into account and they should be exempted from the provisions of Community-wide law and policy. At the back of one's mind one suspects that some countries may be more inclined to seek those derogations than others. Indeed, I believe that the Greeks have not yet introduced the proper system of VAT which they were required to do when they joined the Community several years ago. I should be interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister how this article will operate, what points the


Commission will take into account when it makes its decision, and what powers she as a Minister will have on the Council of Ministers to agree or disagree with the Commission's suggestions.
Amendment No. 6, which is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), is important because the Bill as drafted allows for changes in the common external tariff by majority vote. At a later stage we in the United Kingdom who largely believe in free trade could find ourselves facing a combination of Governments from other Community countries who, together with the Assembly and Commission, wish to be more protectionist. Therefore, they would be in the majority, and, although we, together with the Germans, might vote against such a policy, we could be outvoted and find our tariffs against the Commonwealth and the rest of the world raised without our being able to do anything about it. That is an important matter and I should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister if she could reassure us about it.
Amendment No. 8 deletes the provision for the Commission to draw up a list of national laws which it considers should be changed to secure harmonisation. In 1992, the witching hour, the Commission will assess how far we have moved towards harmonisation of the internal market. Having made its assessment, it will consider various laws and countries and say whether they have been harmonised, what has not been harmonised and what action should be taken. Again, that seems to give power to the Commission. The amendment, which is a probing amendment, seeks to delete that power, and I should be grateful to hear my hon. Friend's views on it.
Amendment No. 18 is of particular interest because it seeks to delete a paragraph from article 18, which inserts new article 100A. Paragraph 3 states:
The Commission, in its proposals…concerning health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, will take as a base a high level of protection.
In other words, the Commission will wish to have fairly stringent legislation when it puts forward its proposals on the internal market.
The Government want to lift the burden, cut bureaucracy and make life easier for small businesses, yet this paragraph suggests that life should be made much more difficult and intricate, that there should be more legislation and a high level of protection. We may believe that we have sensible rules, laws and regulations. Other Community countries may, for commercial advantage because they cannot compete with us in various areas, or because of their traditions, their pressure groups or present position, wish to have greater protection. The Commission will tend to move us towards more complex levels of legislation, regulation and bureaucracy.
In the Final Act at the back of the Single European Act articles state on behalf of the United Kingdom that we believe that the burden should not be increased, especially regarding small and medium-sized businesses. When my hon. Friend replies—I see that she is making notes, so I am sure she intends to do so—I should be grateful if she will tell us what the status is of the Final Act compared with paragraph (3) of article 100A. I have a terrible feeling that if the reduction in powers of the Single European Act in the Final Act does not have a great status, we shall be subjected to a great deal of extra burden and bureaucracy.

Mr. George Robertson: I understand the confusion at this stage over this important set of amendments. A person outside the usual audience of these debates would find the goings-on in which we indulge extraordinary.
The amendments deal with further progress towards the internal market, which is at the centre of the British Government's ambitions for the European presidency. Indeed, in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the Foreign Secretary said that that w as the central, most important objective of the United Kingdom during our months of presidency, which begins on Tuesday of next week.
On the philosophy of the internal market, we must consider the Dooge committee, which was the grandfather of the European Single Act, most of the provisions of which are about to be put into legislation in this Bill. The Dooge committee was lyrical about progress towards the internal market. It said that the internal market would bring more jobs, greater prosperity and faster growth, and would thus make the Community a reality for its citizens. Those are considerable ambitions, given the nature of Europe's problems today. Nowhere in the Dooge committee's report and in our many debates on these issues has any Government Minister cared to tell us how it is that the internal market—the breaking down of frontiers within the EEC and the establishment of this gigantic new market without barriers to trade—will be reached and assisted in the precise ways advocated by its most enthusiastic supporters.
Earlier this year my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asked the Secretary of State what assessment had been made of the impact of a greater internal market on the United Kingdom economy. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) graced the Treasury Bench briefly during the Minister's reply. His interest may have had more to do with when he would get to dinner than with the intricacies of the Minister's defence, but I suppose we should be glad of the small mercy that he bothered to attend the debate. However, he would more appropriately be located on the Treasury Bench for this debate than he was during the debate on the powers of the European Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman, who is somewhat eccentric in his free trade views, said in a written answer that in general
removing barriers to trade within the Community should further increase our trade with other member states and reduce costs to business. It should therefore help to stimulate increased efficiency in the use of resources and accordingly encourage growth in the economy."—[Official Report, 24 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 422.]
That is the simple article of faith that underpins the view that progress towards an internal market will produce more jobs, greater prosperity and faster growth. Nowhere is that more specifically pointed out.
I ask the Minister, as I have asked her predecessor, who has now been elevated to the Cabinet, what effect the internal market will have on the Community. What impact will it have on employment, on the balance of payments, or on import penetration, of which there has been a substantial amount since we became full members of the EEC? What impact will it have on the balance of trade in manufactures, which has so dismally worked to our disadvantage since the Government took office in 1979? What impact will it have on invisible earnings from services, which are usually the major example given by the Government as a sector in which we will benefit?
8.30 pm
There has been no White Paper identifying the benefits to the British economy from the internal market, no assessment of the impact on the economy or the country, no Green Paper, no working document from the National Economic Development Council. We are right to come to the conclusion that either the Government know what will happen, in which case I am sure they would have trumpeted loudly the benefits of the internal market, or, more realistically, they do not know and it is a gamble based on their obsession with deregulation and the free market ideology.
The "internal market" is an expression that is meaningless for 95 per cent., perhaps even 98 per cent., of the country. The Conservative philosophy is that it is the export of Thatcherism. Euro-Thatcherism is what they mean when they talk about the internal market in the EEC. Jobs are supposed to be the priority. Labour Members have, at tedious length, told the Government that jobs in the EEC are the priority. That some 15 million people across the Community are out of work is a tragedy and a disgrace. That should be at the top of the agenda for every European Council. We have said this ad nauseam, but the Government have chosen not to listen. The right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) managed a whole speech about the current state of the European Community without once mentioning the level of unemployment in this country or in the European Community—an achievement which we can only expect added to his chances of promotion to looking after one of the most depressed parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that when he criticises the Government's approach to the internal market and then says that it does not have anything to do with jobs he is betraying his ignorance of the subject? It is precisely because there are problems with transport and other matters that come within the context of the internal market that we will be able to increase the size of the market and the number of jobs, which I dare say his constituents would like to see.

Mr. Robertson: I am sure that my constituents would like to see jobs a lot more than would the constituents of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). He is talking gobbledegook, and if he cares to listen to the rest of my speech he will see why I believe that simple prattling about jobs is no solution and will not create jobs or utilise the immense resources of the EEC to make sure that jobs are created across the Common Market. Rhetoric about the internal market and reducing barriers does not often of itself create new jobs. The result is a spreading of the misery that Europe faces, rather than any increase in prosperity. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was part of another team for this evening's occasion—he is getting himself into a schizophrenic state. No doubt, as he is tantalised by my arguments, he will come to a different conclusion.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: We are all independent gentlemen.

Mr. Robertson: We all fit into that category, with the obvious exclusion of the Minister.
The Foreign Secretary has changed his mind since the day when the right hon. and learned Member for

Pentlands told us that unemployment was not a problem at the top of the agenda for Europe. In The Hague last week, the Foreign Secretary said:
Unemployment is a scourge in all our countries. It is our greatest and most urgent social and economic challenge, and one that can only be met with common policies and common determination.
We strongly and passionately agree with that, and we welcome the conversion of the Foreign Secretary. Unemployment faces more than 4 million of his fellow countrymen and another 9 million or 10 million people across the Community. It is a blight on the picture of growth and prosperity, to which so many of the European countries have grown accustomed. It is worse in Britain, and it should be a worthy and necessary objective of the British presidency of the European Community to do something to end the misery and waste of unemployment.
What do the Government mean by this objective? Later in the same speech the Foreign Secretary went on to quote from a document produced by the Department of Employment, in association with the Governments of Italy and Ireland, on employment prospects in the 1990s, in which it
extolls the virtue of encouraging enterprise and small business, and ending restrictive labour practices.
The Foreign Secretary said:
We seek an internal market economy unshackled by the remaining protective barriers to trade, services, capital and labour.
Now we begin to see precisely what the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues mean by this progress to an internal market. The same iron shackles of monetarism are to be locked on to Europe. We shall export the manifest failures of monetarist priorities to countries which have already rejected inflation and cuts. While they have thrived and expanded by developing their economies, we have failed.
The Paymaster General is regarded, along with the Minister, as one of the key wets in the Government team. It was he who blew the gaff the day after the Foreign Secretary talked about the European agenda and the presidency and denounced, as the headline said, the "EEC debate as piffle". The Paymaster General is also the Minister for Employment and he
bluntly described much of the existing agenda as 'piffle…We should be talking about the main problem we are all facing, which is unemployment and the need to encourage job creation throughout the Community.'
To that we would all say, "Hear, hear." However, the great document drawn up with the Italian and Irish Governments has, as The Guardian says,
a pronounced Thatcherite flavour…Mr. Clarke acknowledged that the paper was long on strategic aims, and short on detailed proposals.
There is no real surprise in that. The same ideological obsessions are to be the hallmark of the British presidency of the European Community. It will be long on rhetoric about unemployment and on the objectives of pulling down trade barriers and making it easier for lorries to travel between countries, but short on doing anything about it, as the British experience since 1979 shows so demonstrably.
The view of this country on the internal market and where it could and should be differs widely from that of other countries within the Community. The Government say that the Community should be a free trade area of itself and that could produce its own rewards, merits and growth, but experience shows that it will produce even wider disparities.
The President of the European Commission, Mr. Jacques Delors, earlier this year highlighted the philosophical difference between the new presidency of the European Community and the bureaucrats who will be asked to implement it. He said:
The creation of a vast economic area based on market and business co-operation is inconceivable, I would say unattainable, without some harmonisation of social legislation.
Of course, it was the harmonisation of social legislation which the Paymaster General chose to categorise as being the "piffle" of the European Community's present debate.
A central provision of the Single European Act contained in the Bill agrees with Jacques Delors and not with the Foreign Secretary. The Single European Act contains, in article 18, a new article 100A to the treaty. As the Foreign Affairs Select Committee rightly said, this section has deliberately been entitled in this way to confuse both the British Parliament and the British people. The Minister of State added her signature to that part of the Single European Act which makes it clear that the attainment of the internal market must be accompanied by social and structural responsibilities to the areas which might suffer as a consequence of a drive towards a free market economy.
The Government believe that the protection of goods travelling between countries is far more important than the people who manufacture the goods. Section II of the European Single Act states that unanimity is to be retained only on the rights and interests of employed people. This is intended to protect the Government's standard, regular and continously used veto in areas where improvements in the rights and interests of employed people would have come about.
The Government will continue to deny the British people the benefits of the EEC. The British people will be denied the benefits of employee consultation provisions, participation provisions and parental leave provisions. Our prosperous Community colleagues already possess these benefits, and they already agree on their standard implementation.
The drive for deregulation will see workers' rights being stripped from them solely in the interests of an obsession with creating a gigantic 200-million strong free market. Why is it that this country always gets the worst of the European Community and never the best from its membership?

Mr. Forth: In this context, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to tell the House how he views the benefits of the kind of European regulations which he has just described and the levels of unemployment in the Community as set against the relative freedom of the internal market in the United States and its relative prosperity and low level of unemployment? Will he accept that there might be a causal connection between over-regulation in the EEC and a relatively free market and prosperity and lower unemployment in the United States?

Mr. Robertson: There can be causal relationships in many things. An automatic comparison between the United States of America and its relative prosperity, which has largely come about through larger budget deficits, which I am sure the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) would deprecate and deplore, is not easy to make. The prosperity in America has come about through the budget deficits rather than through a lack of

bureaucracy. We should not make easy comparisons between prosperous part of the world such as the far east, Japan and the United States of America and the European Community. That does not help the issue.
We could debate that matter, and we may well do so during the course of the debate, but the Government's objective is to be carried out via the Single European Act and is contained in the mechanism and provisions that we are debating. These would allow more majority voting in areas which have already been referred to, but which would deny majority voting in areas where workers' rights are concerned. This is a more relevant subject for discussion this evening.
If there is to be prosperity in Britain or in the European Community, it must be accompanied, as the President of the Commission said, by a considerable social obligation on the rest of the Community to ensure that that growth is accompanied by the protection of rights that have been won with such great difficulty. For example, parental leave will still be subject to the continuing British veto. The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities supported the directive on parental leave and suggested that there was no reason to believe that it would increase costs in British industry. It said that there was no reason to believe that it would threaten jobs. Of course employee consultation would not threaten jobs. In fact, that principle lies at the very heart of some countries, such as the Federal Republic of Germany and is at the economic heart of their success.
8.45 pm
The continued British veto would be retained in such areas. However, in many other areas, where we have no idea or measurement of the consequences, the veto would be removed and majority voting introduced. The Government are relentlessly, inexorably and enthusiastically driving towards completion of a complete frontierless internal market by 1992.
The Government have said that there will be no harmonisation of tax or VAT rates as part of the progress towards an internal market. However, that lies at the very heart of the reasons behind the parts of the Single European Act that are being debated tonight. Lord Cockfield — an exile from the Government — is the principal enthusiast for, and believes strongly in, progress towards the internal market. Lord Cockfied is unequivocal and unambiguous in his desire and drive to harmonise tax and VAT rates and to have them eliminated with everything else in the years until 1992.

Mrs. Chalker: Lord Cockfield is not the Government.

Mr. Robertson: The Minister has just said that he is not the Government. He was dispatched from the Government to do the Government's dirty work in Europe. He is still part and parcel of the ideological make-up which runs the Government. He is not alone. The leader of the Conservative group in the European Parliament made it clear when he said:
It is hard to see how there could be an internal market without a measure of harmonisation in fiscal matters.
Underlying the arguments and the assurances which I know we will receive from the Minister at the end of the debate is an element of internal sabotage within the Conservative party and Conservative thinking which states that the internal market cannot be completed without that degree of fiscal harmonisation.
The recent report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities entitled "Indirect Taxation and the Internal Market" makes it clear that there is no question of the internal market continuing without the harmonisation of indirect taxes. It states:
The committee believe that there is a good case for approximation of indirect taxes as an end in itself, in the interests of fair competition.
We shall return to that issue later. It lies at the heart of our believing the Government's assurances on the exemptions and exceptions that they have sought to gain from the Luxembourg summit and which are now included in the Single European Act. The Committee will look with grave scepticism on the Government's assurances in 1986 when by 1992 the Government's vehicle, in accelerating towards harmonisation on taxation and fiscal matters, will be way out of control.
Across a whole range of issues the Government have laid down their own exemptions in order to make sure that their ideological brand of internal market is foisted upon Europe. In areas where co-operation between the European nations would make sense and work to our benefit the Government have little or nothing to say, and even less to spend.
Spending has gone out of control within the common agricultural policy — the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said that the figures are now in the Vote Office for us all to see— but there has been a 16 per cent. cut in the European budget on technology and research, and these are areas of considerable effect.
I intend to return to the question of the social and regional funds, because article 23 of the Single European Act makes it clear that a strong regional and social fund policy is an integral part of the internal market policy. It would be refreshing to hear from the Government this evening that a commitment to the internal market will also be accompanied by appropriate and adequate resources, especially from the voted agricultural budget, for the social and regional funds. As I did yesterday, I would advise the Minister again not to listen to the fairly narrow views that are sometimes expressed on that count from the Benches behind her.
Of course there will be questions, but the internal market, as the Foreign Secretary has made clear, lies at the heart of the Government's presidential ambitions for the European Community when our presidency starts on Tuesday next week. It is right and proper for the Committee to ask the Government what their intentions are in these areas. Such questions have as yet received inadequate, if any, replies. Britain will not be well served during the presidency of the EC by Ministers of whatever Department unless the British people are given the answers to those questions and are satisfied by them.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The amendments are rather important. We know from previous discussions that the Government did not want the treaty. When the Minister challenged that, I thought that it was only right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Prime Minister, in an excellent exchange on 2 July 1985, said:
I thought that our proposals, which would not have required treaty amendment, would be better. It is important that the internal market be completed, but I think it can be completed keeping the unanimity rule."—[Official Report, 2 July 1985; Vol 82, c. 189.]

That, of course, was the Government's position. They did not want the Act, they did not think that it was necessary, and they thought that legislation could create problems.
Now we have the Act and I have found from previous discussions that there is one thing that the Government use to argue for legislation. They accept that there are many stupid things such as giving more powers to the Assembly, and so on, but they say that the one thing that is good about it is that it will help to complete the internal market. There is no doubt from the Government's point of view that that is the plus factor in this wretched little Act.
We should be a little careful because we should remember that free trade within the Community was the bonus factor that was put forward at the time of our membership. We were told that we would destroy certain of our arrangements with the Commonwealth, that we would lose a certain part of our freedom, but that we should look at all the trade and jobs that would result. Hon. Members may remember Lord Stokes, who was in charge of British Leyland, saying that if only we went into the Common Market we would be able to flood the place with cars and solve our unemployment problems. We know that that has not happened. We heard leading industrialists say that if only we could have freer and better trade within Europe things could be much better. We have seen for ourselves the disastrous consequences. Whereas we always had a surplus in our trade in manufactures with the Common Market in every year before we joined, in every year since we joined we have had a horrendous deficit which last year was £10,000 million.
Before we say that that is the fault of the lazy British workers and hopeless British managers, we should point out that we had a surplus in our trade with the rest of the world of about £6 billion. Obviously, something has gone very wrong in our trade with the Common Market. We have not realised the advantages that were claimed at the time of membership. But now the argument being used is that that is because the market is not free and there are still barriers. It is said that if only through this little Act we can sweep away those barriers it will all come right: there will be more jobs and trade and somehow we shall get the great advantages of this massive internal market. That basically is the argument being used. We are told that we cannot get things through that we want and that if only we can have majority voting we can rush through the hundreds of directives which Lord Cockfield wants before 1992 and then it will all happen. Presumably in the next Parliament, if there is a Conservative Government, things will get better and freer, and there will be more jobs, prosperity and trade.

Mr. Deakins: Did the CBI, representing British industry in 1971 and in 1972 and in the referendum campaign in 1975, make any point about the need for all those further directives and the completion of the internal market? Is it not the fact that, in those days of contact between politicians and industrialists and the electorate, the argument was simply that by joining the Common Market — I think then made up of about 220 million people — British industry would automatically benefit and that has not happened?

Mr. Taylor: Yes. Before we say that it is the fault of the lazy British worker, we should remember that our trade with the rest of the world has got better and better. It is our trade with the EC which has been a disaster. If we use


the CBI's figures, which show that about £10,000 of trade is equal to one job, we are talking here of a loss of 1 million jobs. Those who opposed our membership felt that that was an inevitable consequence, just as Northern Ireland and Scotland have always had more unemployment and depopulation despite all the efforts of the English to pour money into those places. The fact is that in Europe it is rather different. We are out on the periphery, but instead of them pouring money into us we are pouring money into them and throwing away the one advantage that we had of lower food prices and free markets. However, that is irrelevant to this amendment, which is more precise.
Those who were disappointed at the consequences of membership of the EEC to trade, particularly those in industry, bearing in mind the fact that our percentage of the trade of the original six is now almost the same as it was the year before we joined, about 7 per cent., there has been hardly any difference in our share of their trade in manufactures.
We should look carefully at this further measure which will give the Community the power to force through hundreds of directives by majority vote even if it is against the wishes of the British Government, the British Parliament and the British people.
What advantages are claimed for forcing through those directives by majority voting? The first that we are told is that, whereas Britain may not be so good at manufacturing, we are just wonderful at insurance. Some hon. Members who are present are particularly knowledgeable and experienced in insurance and they will be able to tell us something about it. People say that we are not very good at selling goods to Europe but that directives would enable them to sell insurance and banking, and that if they had the freedom to do that those services would make all the difference. They say that those things could be done if the barriers were removed. According to answers I have had from the Government, the directives are in existence. On 14 April I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when a proposal to allow a free market in insurance was last considered. He told me:
A number of directives in the insurance field have been approved. Generally, the effect of these directives has been to create a free market for reinsurance and freedom of establishment for both life and non-life insurers. Proposals for a non-life insurance services directive have been submitted by the Commission." —[Official Report,14 April 1986; Vol. 95, c. 239.]
The Commission was awaiting the outcome of four cases before the European Court of Justice.
9 pm
Most of the directives are already in force and form part of the law of Europe. If there is a dreadful failure by the insurance companies to sell insurance in the Common Market, it is not primarily because of a lack of directives. I declare an interest in this matter because I am a director of a most splendid insurance company, Ansvar, which insures only total abstainers. It has had the most wonderful success in selling insurance all over the world to good people who do not drink alcohol, but the one place that has been a total disaster for it is Germany. I should like to tell the Minister privately the sort of problems that we met in Germany despite the existence of this law.
We are told that directives would help with transport and that everything would sort itself out. The Minister

should have a word with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport. He will tell the Minister about the problems we had in Southend even though the directives are already in place. We ran a successful service from London to Frankfurt. People took a bus from London to Southend, a plane from Southend to Ostend, and a bus from Ostend to Frankfurt.
It was a successful service, and to make sure that we did not upset the Germans we used buses provided by their nationalised bus company. Of course we took quite a lot of that bus company's business and suddenly the Germans told us that, sadly, they were not able to provide us with a nationalised bus any more. We appealed to the Germans and to the Foreign Office and to the ambassador in Bonn and went to the Department of Transport and said that all we wanted was any old bus provided by anyone to carry our passengers from Ostend to Frankfurt.
If the Minister cares to phone Mr. Gareth Evans, the airport director in Southend, he will tell her the story. The Foreign Office was very courteous and so were the people in the ambassador's office in Bonn. Everyone wanted to help, but nothing has happened and we still do not have a bus to take our Southend passengers from Ostend to Frankfurt. That is because, despite the directives already in force, the Germans will not allow any bus provided by any company, whether German, British, Dutch or any other nationality, to carry our passengers. They just say no; there are bureaucratic delays.
Let us look at the inner German trade agreement. The Minister is well aware of the problems there. Our biggest trade deficit is with Germany, and hon. Members will be aware of British workers being put out of jobs because of the massive flow of east European subsidised trade from East Germany to West Germany, thereby gaining access to the EEC. The rule is that those goods cannot be sent out of West Germany unless they contain a certain amount of added value. The Minister must be aware that the rules are blatantly disregarded. I have sent case after case to the Department of Trade giving it clear examples of total breaches of the law, fiddles. The cases are constantly referred to the Commission but nothing happens.
It should not be taken for granted that if we get all these new directives by majority voting everything will be sorted out. The problem with the Common Market relates to the implementation of directives and not the need for more directives. There are plenty of directives already and they do not work. As usual, Britain is the mug in the Common Market because we accept all the rules and the others blatantly and offensively disregard them. Germany and France are the worst culprits. The Germans do not admit it, but the French do.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the political motivation behind what we are discussing is that the implementation of the directives, which, as my hon. Friend points out, already exist if we want to use them, will be contingent upon the United Kingdom agreeing to this new political initiative in the EEC? The price that we are asked to pay for the implementation of what we want and what we are told was the original objective of the EEC—an internal market and free trade—is the further political impetus that the Single European Act will provide. Does he not agree that that might be a price worth paying for a genuine internal market?

Mr. Taylor: No, I do not agree. I cannot accept that. The fact is that there has been a problem in getting anyone to provide a bus service from Ostend to Frankfurt. If we were to abolish this Parliament and put all our powers and decision-making processes into the European Parliament, with the only democratic powers exercised in Britain residing with the Southwark and Lambeth borough councils, I still believe, sadly, that there would be no bus service from Ostend to Frankfurt, although the relevant directive would provide for one.

Mr. Spearing: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that even the relatively non-controversial directives for an internal market do not work? Is it not possible for him, his firm or his constituents to get what appears to be the operation of them? Could he take this matter to the lower tier of the proposed court? If he decided to take that course, does he think that it would be too expensive? Does he think that the law may fall into disrepute because it is not operable?

Mr. Taylor: Anyone who doubts my word should telephone a splendid firm called MAYJEX which has been extremely diligent in chasing Members of Parliament and others in trying to get problems solved that are associated with the dumping of food in Britain from East Germany as a result of the inter-German trade agreement. More dried eggs are dumped in Britain from West Germany than West Germany produces. That is remarkable. In fact, the eggs come from East Germany. Representatives of MAYJEX have been everywhere. They have approached Government Departments and those Departments have contacted the Commission. The Commission has called for reports and the reports have been produced, but nothing has happened. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will not say that additional directives will suddenly cause everything to happen. I suggest that the problem is far more fundamental and difficult and that it will not be solved by introducing more directives.

Mr. Deakins: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the German Democratic Republic is to be considered part of the internal market? We know that the GDR is not part of the Community, but does the inter-German trade agreement mean that West Germany and East Germany can trade together and that Britain cannot trade with East Germany through West Germany because of the agreement? Is that not unfair?

Mr. Taylor: Of course it is unfair. It is part of the original treaty of Rome. The hon. Gentleman knows well —presumably he merely wants me to announce this—that the inter-German trade agreement is part of the basic treaty. If anyone has any doubt about this, he should remember the discussions that took place on the polluted radioactive foods coming from east Europe. We had to enact some exciting, new and dramatic legislation that stated that we would not import any foodstuffs from Czechoslovakia, Poland, Russia and other east European countries except East Germany. East Germany was omitted from the list even though it is abundantly clear that food from other countries flows from East Germany to West Germany under the inter-German trade agreement. Why was East Germany not included? We know that East Germany is not further away from Chernobyl than other east European countries. There are

parts of Czechoslovakia which are much further away from Chernobyl than East Germany. East Germany was excluded because of the inter-German trade agreement.
I asked a Minister a splendid question to which I am still awaiting an answer. I wanted to know how we could tell a Polish pig from an East German pig. To my knowledge, there is no way of identifying the respective pigs. Livestock and goods flow from East Germany into West Germany and the existing rules are not implemented. Unfortunately, there is no effective machinery to ensure that they are. Other nation states act like protectionist nation states.
If there is any doubt about what I am saying, we should remember poor old Lord Stokes who told us to join the Common Market so that the British car industry could have a bonanza and flood the Common Market with cars. In Britain there are plenty of French and German cars on our roads, but we do not see a proportionate number of British cars on the continent. Is it that our cars are unsuited to French, German or Italian roads? I suggest that the answer goes deeper than that. If my hon. Friend the Minister of State thinks that by bringing in new directives we shall suddenly enjoy freer trade and the abolition of trade barriers, I would say that there are sufficient grounds for questioning that.
What will be the effect on the United Kingdom of a flood of new directives? They are not just concerned with tearing down barriers; when they are implemented, many will have disappointing results for our constituents.
For example, one of the many hundreds of directives which Lord Cockfield wants to shove through—one a day—is for harmonising Ministry of Transport tests for private cars. I wonder whether the Minister has considered this and the consequences on the payment made by our private car owners if they have to adopt the harmonisation of private MOT tests. I suggest that, if implemented, Members will receive many letters from their constituents, but of course there would he nothing we could do about it.
Earlier today I asked a written question of our splendid Home secretary—someone who is prepared to stand up for Britain at every possible time. I asked my right hon. Friend what discussions he had had about the proposed EEC broadcasting directive. His answer was splendid:
The Department has had many discussions with the BBC and the IBA on the European Commission's proposals on broadcasting…and we are in close touch with them on the proposed directive. Both broadcasting organisations share the Government's view that a case for Community legislation in this field has not been made out.
When the Single European Act goes through, that can be imposed on the BBC the IBA, and even on the new cash-rich Thames Television, by majority vote. There is a host of new directives which, I can assure the Minister, will be especially unpopular if they are forced on Britain by majority vote. I regard this not as a move towards freer trade but part of the European design, the Foreign Office design, of promoting harmonisation throughout Europe. I believe it has precious little to do with free trade.
What about the other proposal— the majority vote on common external tariffs and trade terms? What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that the tariffs in Europe will be changed up or down by majority vote, although we disagree completely? This is one of the most dangerous parts of the proposal. We are well aware that the protectionist movement within the Common Market is strong and growing. There is no doubt that, instead of


being a movement towards freer trade, the Common Market is becoming more and more of a protectionist influence in the world. We see that especially in agriculture but also in other industries.
Does the Minister think that even if the Single European Act does not achieve free trade in Europe it will contribute to freer trade with the rest of the world? I very much doubt that. The EEC sadly disregards GATT minimum prices in its agricultural policy.
Amendment No. 8 asks the Commission to publish a report specifying all the laws of Great Britain which, in its view, conflict with harmonisation in the Common Market. The Commission wants legislation to ensure that goods move as freely between Rome and London as they do between Birmingham and London. The next amendment we shall deal with concerns tax harmonisation, and I challenge the Minister to say how goods can move between Rome and London as they do between Birmingham and London if VAT and excise duties are not totally harmonised. Of course, as Lord Cockfield has said and others have admitted, it is an inevitable legal consequence of the free internal market.
I am sure that the Minister genuinely believes that these proposals will be a step towards achieving freer trade. I suggest that, instead of having freer trade, which the Minister and all of us want, within the EEC, we will get a whole host of new, nasty directives imposing things on the British people which they do not want and which Parliament does not want. Unfortunately, we will not get the pay-off in freer trade which we all desire.
Sadly, the Common Market is in danger of becoming a nasty, protectionist organisation, disrupting world trade and undermining GATT. This Bill, if nothing else, will move the Common Market a further step towards that. It would be much better to concentrate on finding better, more effective ways of achieving freer trade on the basis of existing directives. Instead of bringing forward new laws, we should, like other member states, respond to non-tariff discrimination by doing the same ourselves.
Some of us have different views about whether it was a good or bad idea to join the Common Market. But even my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) may accept that we have turned out to he real mugs.

Mr. Dykes: I do not accept that.

Mr. Taylor: If that is so, my hon. Friend should visit some of my friends who used to work in the steel works. He should find out whether they believe that they have been treated in the same way as the Italians, Germans and so on. If my hon. Friend has any doubts about us being the mugs of Europe, he should tell me whether he knows of any German firm that would find difficulty in obtaining a British bus to take people from London to any destination they chose. We see plenty of German buses in London, and no one seems to stop them. He should also telephone Mr. Gareth Evans of Southend airport, the Miracle bus company, or the Under-Secretary of State for Transport and ask them whether I am telling the truth. He should telephone the MAYJEX Company and ask what it thinks of implementing the inner German trade agreement.
Sadly, we are the mugs. We keep the rules, and if there are more rules we shall keep more of them, while the other

member states do not keep them at all. Rather than representing an improvement, the Bill represents a move towards greater bureaucracy and harmonisation, and there is no voice in it for Britain.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I begin with a confession that may little endear me to either side of the Committee. I have a deep-rooted prejudice in favour of freedom of trade. I am sorry about that, and apologise for it, but it is so deep as to be ineluctable. I cannot help believing that benefits for all concerned, inside and outside the nation, are likely to flow from freedom of trade.
Unfortunately, the EEC—despite its earlier legends—has nothing to do with freedom of trade. I need not labour the fact that externally it not only has nothing to do with freedom of trade but has disastrously interfered with trade relations between its member states and the rest of the outside world. Many, even of those who were in favour of it years ago, increasingly wonder whether the damage done by its external restrictions on trade outweighs whatever advantages accrue from the internal free market.

Mr. Spearing: Theoretical free market.

Mr. Powell: Indeed it is theoretical.
The internal free trade of the EEC is procured by compulsion and by an attempt to enforce similar regulations, practices and laws on all the participant countries. One of the beautiful advantages of free trade is that one does not have to interfere with anyone else to enjoy it. Freedom of trade between the citizens of two countries enables the inhabitants of them both to follow their own customs, ways and stupidities and to have their own forms of taxation and of internal restriction, yet they are still able to take the consequences without imposing them on anyone else.
Therefore, internal free trade within the EEC does not need compulsion, and is not even achievable by compulsion. How is the paradox resolved that the internal free market has to be striven for by a growing series of directives, compulsions and enforced harmonisation. In this group of amendments, we are considering how that enforcement could be more speedily and readily achieved The answer is that the EEC is not about freedom of trade. Despite its name, it is about not economics but politics.
There is a long tradition to that effect in central Europe. There is a long tradition of a Zollverein. In the middle of the last century it was not an instrument intended to bring about the economic freedom, liberation or advancement of the countries party to it, but an instrument of mediatisation. It was an instrument of growing pressure upon the minor states of central Europe to be joined in a political union under the leadership of Prussia. It was par excellence a political measure.
Through all these enactments, through all the basic principles of the Common Market, we discern this meaning of the free market. This is a free market that is to be based upon common political institutions and upon the enforcement of common institutions and laws as a process leading towards, so it is imagined, political unification. It is about political unification and not about the benefits of free trade. Indeed, it is about compulsion and not about freedom. It is not really surprising in the end, if we look at the nature of this institution which we joined in 1973, that we should find that the United Kingdom, when it set out to try to secure greater reciprocity in freedom of trade in various respects, ended


up by being confronted and obliged to comply with a new regime for the enforcement of common regulations upon itself as well as upon the other members.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is of course right when he says that in the end politics gets its way. A book has been published recently by an American, a former Minister in the Reagan Administration, under the name "The Triumph of Politics" in which he describes his originally innocent discovery that, whatever were the economic professions of the Government that he served, politics had its way in the end. That has been beautifully illustrated by the point of the hon. Member for Southend, East, that in this institution which professes to aim at the political uniting of the former, the ex-nations of central Europe, the nations are there alive and real, seeking their internal advantage, seeking their separate advantage, under cover of enforcement upon others of regulations that they think will be advantageous to themselves.
It is a remarkable example that we were reminded of by the hon. Member for Southend, East that, of course, the Common Market has an open window to the East because the German motivation of German reunification and the ability of Germany to hold the Common Market to ransom from its earlier inception enforces that upon the rest of the members of the Community, and makes an absurdity of their attempts at control. Not only are we pursuing a political objective, therefore, but we are pursuing a political objective which in the end, after all the grief and struggle, will be found to be a will-o'-the-wisp and a mirage.
I do not know whether I am getting agreement from the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)—no, I am not.

Mr. Dykes: I, like so many other people, am worried by the right hon. Gentleman's sheer hysteria.

Mr. Powell: As they say, I am within the judgment of the House. It was my disappointed expectation that I could trade off with the Member for Harrow, East my acceptance with him that the motivation of the European Economic Community is political union with the recognition on his part that that political union is itself a mirage and a will-o'-the wisp. That is where the hysteria arises — in mistaking the unattainable for a solid, political objective which one can obtain by enforcing upon unwilling populations what, if they were free to do so, they would reject.

Mr. Cash: Is it not right that at the time of the European Communities original accession in 1972 the right hon. Gentleman said:
I come to speak to you as a European among Europeans."?
Perhaps he will recall that expression. But of course what he meant by that is not necessarily the same as some other people.

Mr. Powell: I think that the hon. Member is referring to my personal crusade in the early months of 1971 when, as best I could, in four of the languages of the Community, I sought to explain to them that the British did not really mean this, could not really entertain the objectives that were professed by the European Economic Community and, if they did not want a great disappointment, they

should not mistake British humbug for genuine British intention because it was not within the comprehension or within the capabilities of the British people genuinely to enter into the submergence of their institutions and their identity and their nationality into a European amalgam. I am obliged to the hon. Member for reminding me of that sub-heroic episode.

Sir Anthony Meyer: As a prophet, the right hon. Gentleman is very often right. He invariably prophesies the worst, and the worst usually happens. He referred to Germany maintaining a window to the East, but does he recognise that in the view of other EEC members this country maintains a window to the West, because of the special relationship that a great many people claim we have with the United States and the very special relationship we have with, for example, New Zealand?

Mr. Powell: I think that the hon. Gentleman would have difficulty in maintaining that the United Kingdom has trade privileges outside the Community that are similar to those that have been accorded to the Federal Republic of Germany. However, I concede that the hon. Gentleman has rumbled my prophetic method. One of the advantages of being a cursing prophet rather than a blessing prophet is that things generally go wrong and therefore one is likely to turn out to be right all along.

Mrs. Chalker: indicated assent.

Mr. Powell: I am glad to have the Minister's agreement. This is a subject upon which ministerial confirmation is perhaps better than the reinforcement that one could have from any other quarter.
I want to address a number of inquiries to the hon. Lady arising out of the amendments that we are making to the original treaty by virtue of some of the articles of the Single European Act that are involved in these amendments. The first is article 16. My question relates to the new article 28, which article 16 writes into the treaty. I must admit that this is a matter of inquisitiveness on my part. The main object of the amendment is to substitute qualified majority for that unanimous decision which, as the hon. Member for Southend, East reminded the Committee, the Government originally thought would be adequate for the achievement of their economic objectives.
What puzzles me is that the opportunity was taken to make another alteration. The original article referred to
Any independent alteration or suspension of duties".
Now we are correcting that and writing in instead:
Any autonomous alteration or suspension of duties".
I should be most interested to know whether the hon. Lady could obtain information in good time about the particular virtue of substituting "autonomous" for "independent". Was there some linguistic imperialism at work in the recesses and corridors of the European Economic Community that preferred one adjective rather than the other? I hope that it is not troubling the hon. Lady too much to satisfy my curiosity on that point.

Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman has great experience of legal and parliamentary texts. Although the article to which he has just referred relates to the common customs tariff, as discussions are taking place with regard to taking measures against South Africa, would it be possible, if the majority of Community members were in


favour of changing the tariffs for various items from South Africa, for them to use majority voting to impose that decision on the United Kingdom?

Mr. Powell: The Minister will no doubt deal with that point when she is kind and courteous enough to reply to my less significant query.
One has to read article 18 together with article 19. Remembering that we are writing this article into the law of the United Kingdom by enacting it in this Bill, I inquire what it requires. The operative words of paragraph 1 of new article 100A arc:
The Council shall…adopt the measures for the approximation of the provisions…which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market.
9.30 pm
Now, "shall" and "will" are an eternal torment for foreigners attempting to cope with the English language, and not all members of the component nations of the United Kingdom use "shall" and "will" in the same way. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect that there should be some precise meaning in any formulation that is going to be mandatory upon the citizens of the United Kingdom by virtue of being enacted in an Act of Parliament.
Article 28, with which we were just dealing, says:
Any autonomous alteration…shall be decided by the Council acting by a qualified majority".
I think I know what that means; that if the Council wants to decide upon an alteration it shall do it by qualified majority. That, I think, is the meaning of "shall" in new article 28.
But I find great difficulty in interpreting in the same way the word "shall" in new article 100A. The natural meaning of the expression "the Council shall" adopt certain measures is precisely that the Council shall adopt and is under an obligation to adopt certain measures. My suspicion that that might be the case is strengthened by what little I can understand of the remainder of the new article. If that can be taken as too abject a confession of nescience I draw attention to the remarkable words that, by the way, they are enacting as part of the law of the United Kingdom:
The Commission…will take as a base a high level of protection.
That is not the sort of language that parliamentary draftsmen are apt to dish up to Ministers who hope to get their Bills through the House of Commons and is a reminder of the strange combination of compulsion and vagueness that characterises the administration of the European Economic Community, whereby we are told here in this House and in this country, "You have enacted this. It is part of the law of the United Kingdom. This is what you are about to do by virtue of the international and legal obligations which you have undertaken". Yet, at the same time, when one reads it, one finds that it is deliberately so drafted as to be absolutely full of holes and let-outs. I see that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) wishes to help me.

Mr. Cash: Would my right hon. Friend agree that there are distinct differences in the interpretation of Community law when compared to domestic municipal law, which we have in the United Kingdom? Would he agree that it is precisely because of the width of the scope of the European treaty and the rules of interpretation having regard to, say, article 2 of the treaty of Rome against the background of

the general objective of the treaty, that we have to look with great care, although not necessarily be unduly critical, at the meaning of the preamble and its inclusion in the Bill?

Mr. Powell: That will no doubt entertain and amuse us later in the debate, if it is so unreasonably protracted that we reach the question of a preamble, which is interesting in its own right.
I thought that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was going to remind me and the Committee that this very vagueness with which the law of the Community tends to be drawn is one of the reasons why the power and scope of the European Court of Justice is from the British point of view so exorbitant. They have to interpret a kind of law that is so drafted as to give to its interpretation by the court a width and a scope that is quite incompatible with our notions of law and judicial interpretation.

Mr. Deakins: On the sub-paragraph of new article 100A from which the right hon. Gentleman quoted the words "high level of protection", is it not extraordinary that Ministers should have approved so vague a word as "high", which could mean almost anything, particularly when it is not quantified? Will that not create many more problems in the evolution of the internal market, let alone in what the European Court of Justice will think of problems that are referred to it, if something more specific is not put into the Bill? If Ministers had devoted rather more time to the matter, they could have put in words that would at least have meant something positive and would not have been capable of such easy misinterpretation.

Mr. Powell: It would be interesting to know, perhaps we may be enlightened, whether Ministers would have preferred a tighter drafting of some of these provisions. I must say that I find it difficult to understand how even those who have spent less than 36 years wrestling with the draftmanship of British Bills and statutes could bring themselves to put their signature to documents, which are to be made part of the law of the United Kingdom by the operation in which we are engaged tonight, which contain such vague and almost meaningless expressions as these.

Mr. Deakins: I have just discovered in the Community's annual report for 1985 the following phrase written by the Commission:
The Commission also ensured that its texts"—
that is, the texts put to Ministers for approval—
were sufficiently general not to contain excessively precise clauses on the development of new policies.

Mr. Powell: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his discovery. I hope that it will be given even greater publicity than the proceedings of this Committee might attract. He seems to have got hold of a gem, and it is something which could feature on bureaucratic desks inside and outside the European Community.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously been studying the wording, and therefore may I ask whether he has seen the article which allows a member state to apply for exemption from all these measures if it considers itself to be less well developed? Has he found an appropriate definition of "less well developed"?

Mr. Powell: I am almost overwhelmed by the illustrative examples of my general thesis which are being offered from both sides of the Committee. Certainly, article 18 is a happy hunting ground for those who are


looking for vague formulations and uninterpretable generalisations which we ought to refuse, as a matter of principle, to allow to be made part of the law of the United Kingdom.
I am sorry that I have allowed myself to be diverted by the delights along the way, but I shall now return to the precise question I want to ask the Minister. I want to ask whether the word "shall" in paragraph I of new article 100A is mandatory. Is it a statement that it is the duty of the Council to do this, in which case the nature of its duty depends on the definition at the end of that paragraph, or does it mean that it can do so if it wishes? It is a rather important distinction and I do not think that we should part with these amendments without knowing the answer.

Mr. Spearing: I should like to address the right hon. Gentleman before he sits down, because it might be helpful to take it in sequence. Has the right hon. Gentleman realised that if the programme of enforced harmonisation required under this treaty is not completed under article 100A, article 100B takes over where the Commission appears to impose the laws of one nation upon another. Therefore, there is a continuing constraint and duty on the Council to obtain that harmonisation by majority voting. That is, no doubt, the constraint of "shall".

Mr. Powell: I am tempted by the intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), perhaps due to old lexicographical habits, to go just to the extent of pointing out that the word "shall" also appears in the new article 100B. In that article it must be mandatory. Surely it means that the Commission jolly well must. That inspires me with fear that in article 100A the word "shall" means that the Council jolly well must. I hope that that is something on which we shall receive clarification before the end of the debate.

Mr. Dykes: Tonight, as always, when these issues are discussed in Committee and generally, a form of enthusiastic constitutional madness takes over. I use the word "constitutional" in its lightest sense. As our parliamentary colleagues get drawn into the semantic investigation of tiny words in clauses, they forget that they are complacent and over-reverent members of a Parliament which churns out a monumental amount of legislation every year. The legislation is ill-digested, unexamined, not properly examined. Through our tremendous rituals, usually on a three-line whip, hon. Members vote on the legislation without having had a chance to examine it properly. There is a vast quantity of undigested and ill-digestible legislation. We have that reputation among all objective observers.
I do not complain too much about that, because there is a good side to this robust Parliament — the manifestation of the will to legislate. However, we all know the adverse consequences of that. When we consider the procedure by which legislation is drafted and examined in the European Community, before it reaches the equivalent of our Second Reading stage — I say that in the colloquial sense; not literally—how can we say that our processes are infinitely superior?

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend has made many interventions. I do not intend to give way. He should

exercise a little patience. If I thought that he would make a short intervention, I would willingly give way, but at the moment I have my doubts. I may give way to him later, but not at the moment. I hope that he will forgive me.
The way in which the Community legislates is seen by more and more objective observers as a better way of legislating. A better legislative result is obtained than that achieved under our system, which is a repetitive nightmare of huge quantities of controversial legislation enacted and then repealed a year or two afterwards by the alternative adversarial political reform that is elected on a minority vote—not even on a built-in, genuine majority of the population.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Dykes: I shall not give way.
The idea that such a system is wonderful, sacred and marvellous and that the system of continental countries—our friends and allies—which are working together to create a European Community is not is myopic and absurd. The public know it. They are tempted less and less by the false blandishments of that reactionary, old-fashioned and out-of-date argument. That attitude is partly responsible for the decline of this country. That worries me and others who want to see the European Community develop in a robust, positive and, indeed—I refer to the tremendous delays that have been seen in the past—rapid way. That is why the amendments must be resisted by the Committee.
The creation of an internal market — whatever its relationship to the concessions made at the time of the latest summit agreements which form the basis of the Single European Act—is long overdue. The Committee should be a party to its creation as soon as possible. Such legislation is difficult to create. How different it would have been — I follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) — if we had accepted the invitation of our European friends to join the Community and the Common Market at the beginning instead of coming in too late, when we are less able to change things. We should have joined the European Community at the beginning when we could have forged many of its manifestations and structures in the way we wanted as the island power entering the continent of Europe.
The internal market is long overdue. Vast benefits will accrue to all the member states from its creation. The sooner that it is created properly the better. I reject the monstrous canard that is repeated on such occasions—that it is the wicked foreigners doing us down; that we are the only virtuous, honest and rule-obeying members of the European Community. That is utter nonsense. If we are endowed with the ability to use a foreign language when we visit other countries, we can easily get our ears bent by the many stories from business men who have tried to come to this country with their projects and have been frustrated by the internal national bureaucracy. That happens in all the countries as the common market in commercial and industrial terms is created.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can my hon. Friend help me to get a German bus?

Mr. Dykes: We all have examples of different problems. As a German speaker, I should love to see the Germans'


reply in the file of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). Perhaps he would be kind enough to let me have it so that I can read what the Germans have said.

Mr. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend help me in my campaign?

Mr. Dykes: I shall not give way at the moment. I am referring to what he said from a sedentary position. There are many similar examples.
Recently, during a visit to the National Assembly, I listened to a debate during which references were made to the development of trade in Britain by French companies. Similar assertions were made then.

Mr. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dykes: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way, because of the time.
It would have been useful if I had been able to stay longer to listen to the French complaints and try to assist them. That is the spirit in which all politicians of the member states work in creating a healthier economy.

Mr. Taylor: Is there not a danger that those who do not know my hon. Friend may think that he is a trifle arrogant? My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Transport have been trying for six months to get a German bus for Southend. There is a danger in my hon. Friend saying that he might be able to resolve the matter—I hope that he will—because those who do not know him may consider his remarks are a little arrogant.

Mr. Dykes: I was referring to the many examples in general terms. As my hon. Friend was shouting out about a bus, I thought that I would use it as an example. My hon. Friend may be right. There are many other examples in all the member states.
It has been asserted, justifiably, that an examination of the number of rules laid down and the number of times they have been breached by member states shows that we do not come at the top of the list. There are restrictive practices in all member countries. The essential aim in creating the internal market — I wish the Government every success in their efforts—is to get away from our difficulties and harriers, not to use them as part of a philosophical argument of resistance to the whole idea. That is the mental disease of the anti-marketeers in the Committee. They do not have a genuine wish to see the creation of a common market.
There are misapprehensions about the way in which the United Kingdom has succeeded, or not succeeded, as a member of this still rudimentary, primitive and underdeveloped internal market system, in terms of services and the provision of goods. It is difficult for us to separate out, in philosophical and technical operational terms, the internal demand management policies of any national Administration and the arrival of a new member in the market. I think that it is reasonable to assert that we have done well with respect to the net addition to our physical exports to other European countries and with respect to some aspects of our invisible exports to some European countries.
I have frequently quarrelled with the internal application of the Government's demand-deflation policy since 1979. Have that policy and excessive adherence to monetarism, which became unfathomable as time went on,

meant that our economy has been too weak and too small to take advantage of the opportunities in the larger market? Admittedly, we have done well with a certain number of increasingly rather esoteric products, but we have not done well with motor cars, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East said. Why? Is it a combination of union misbehaviour, weak management and poor marketing policy? Is it also the fact that the United Kingdom is, par excellence, the country that invests less than all advanced countries with equivalent populations?
The figures for investment in new assets, both public and private, for research and development and for reinvestment from our own creative internal resources fill me with a certain terror and anxiety for the future. That syndrome appears to be persistent.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Sir Paul. I wonder whether you could direct the Committee's attention to the amendment to which my horn. Friend speaks?

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): I was beginning to listen a little anxiously to the hon. Gentleman who is straying into some of the later amendments. The amendments under discussion deal with the internal market.

Mr. Dykes: Obviously, Sir Paul, I shall follow your guidance. I was referring to amendment No. 5 and those grouped with it. I had to develop the argument about the state of the United Kingdom's economy and its investment weakness to relate it to the creation of the internal market.
Success or failure will be determined not only by the creation of the market and other markets in the world, but by the internal actions of the Governments. That is why the amendments should be resisted and why the articles are so important in the Single European Act.
Will the Minister assure me that in future we shall increasingly have the essential, qualified majority voting for all decisions taken by the Finance Council and by the equivalent of our economic Ministers' councils, at whatever level, for the reflation of the various member states' economies to get away from a prolonged period of deflation, not only in this country, which has remained weaker than the other large powers in the Community, but in the other countries, including France and Germany? With the introduction of the Single European Act, that can he done from now on. That could be the more hopeful aspect of what this European legislation can create, if the will is shown not by a curmudgeonly, nervous member state, feeling that it is half a failure or half a success only, and therefore unable to exert the political will to cooperate with our fellow member states, without providing a lead for the creation of a dynamic European economy.

Mr. Roger Moate: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) will accept a genuine expression of sympathy from me. I suspect that his ideological attachment to and his adoration and love for all things European has stopped him from enjoying the debate so far, and the masterly speech given by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I am sorry for him because he seems so bored with controversial politics in the United Kingdom. He said how much he regretted the type of controversial legislation that we have introduced into this Parliament, sometimes to repeal it later. One can only conclude that my hon. Friend wants supranational laws passed on a greater scale


to put our activities into the perspective of a minor role. He regrets the legislation that he has been supporting in the Lobbies in recent years, and looks forward to the time when legislation will be done on a grander, broader scale, without the precise detail into which we enter. He looks forward to the day when the great Euro-ideals which he espouses will be accepted readily and easily by all hon. Members, without any chance to quarrel. I am sorry for him if he is bored by our debates, especially by our constitutional arguments, which others may view as significant changes.

Sir Russell Johnston: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would extend a little of his sympathy to me, too? Given that controversial issues are introduced and that part of the argument against a Single European Act is that it would reduce our capacity to defend our national interest, does he not agree that the national interest varies according to which party is in power, and that there is no abstract definition of it whatever?

Mr. Moate: That is determined by the British people and the Parliament at the time. Indeed, the definition of the national interest will change from time to time, but at least it is determined by the British Parliament or the British people through their Parliament. The hon. Gentleman makes well and clearly the point that the capacity of each nation to defend its interests is reduced by this proposition. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East is bored by these trivial debates. It is all too tedious for him. Why do we not just accept the splendid Acts rather than debate them at some length?

Sir Anthony Meyer: It is common ground that this country is uniquely well governed, in an exceptionally efficient system. My hon. Friend has to square that with the fact that France and Germany, which were beaten to their knees in 1945, have living standards appreciably above ours, which has probably nothing to do with the political system.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. We are now straying from the subject of the debate, which is the internal market.

Mr. Moate: I thank you for making the point much better than I would have, Sir Paul. It is out of order, but my hon. Friend's point is not even relevant to the debate.
This brief debate on the extension or completion of the internal market is the reason for the Bill. The only reason that we have it before us is that it was the price that the Government were prepared to pay for the completion of the internal market. One would not think so from the fairly thinly attended debate or from the rather abstract discussion that we have had, but if it were not for the Government's wish to make progress in this direction, we should not be debating the Act. I do not believe that it is worth paying the price of the constitutional sacrifice that we are making for the contents of the Bill. What is supposed to lead us to the completion of the internal market is naive expectation elevated into statute form. It is pure optimism translated into legislation.
If one wants evidence of that, one has only to look through the Final Act and at our experience. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to address one point. What specific obligations will this Bill place on other member states for

the removal of obstacles to trade? We can well see that there could be majority voting on a number of issues, but there are so many exemptions that I suspect that, in practice, the completion of the internal market will make little progress. If we were talking about a Bill that put into precise form the removal of certain obstacles, we would be talking about something worth while, but we are not. We are talking about a whole range of proposals that wrap up the introduction of qualified majority voting on a number of issues. That is not the same thing as laying obligations on member states.
I make it clear that I am a great believer in the principles of free trade. I am not sure whether free trade is a principle, but it is in the interests of the country and pragmatically we should welcome it. I would warmly welcome the removal of as many tariff and non-tariff barriers and obstacles to capital movements and insurance sales throughout the Community as possible. However, we can achieve all that without joining the EEC. The EEC was essentially a protectionist device. It is not a free trade area, which is a concept that would have been warmly welcomed by the vast majority of people. This new proposition does virtually nothing to take away the Community's protectionist nature.
I would warmly welcome freer trade, but I do not welcome the imposition of compulsory harmonisation of those obstacles that are deemed by bureaucrats to be in the way of free trade. Free trade between nations is different from compulsory harmonisation of all the nations concerned. That is what we are being told: in many areas where we might object, we shall be compelled to accept majority voting. In many of those areas there could be considerable reaction in the House and throughout Britain.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will also consider the practical example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on broadcasting. That is a classic example of one of the hundreds of smaller matters where harmonisation might be required, although I am sceptical about whether this will happen against the express wishes of the Government. Why should we do that? What does it have to do with the completion of the internal market?
It being Ten o'clock, THE SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill may he proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. Moate: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would consider some of the practical illustrations that have been given, including broadcasting and the MOT. They are the tip of the iceberg of hundreds of regulations that might be unwelcome to the House and to the country and that we might be forced to accept. We are being asked to pay a constitutional price for naive expectations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East and others talk about the great period of our Presidency. It is surprising how quickly a Presidency can come and go, with nothing remaining as a souvenir of that great period of


grandeur. I forecast that that will happen this time. The completion of and progress towards the internal market is a pious hope and it is folly to pay a constitutional price for it.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend suggest that the Minister should explain to the House the constitutional advantages of the Presidency? I agree that, in recent weeks, we have heard much about the exciting possibilities that will he open to the United Kingdom during our Presidency. It would be most reassuring if my hon. Friend the Minister could explain the advantages.

Mr. Moate: I suspect that that, too, strays rather wide òf the completion of the internal market and the amendments that we are discussing. Perhaps it is one of the few benefits of being a member of the Community. For a few months, we shall have the illusion of granduer, with a range of Ministers being given the wonderful title of "President".
What have we gained so far? If have not gained very much, why not? Hon. Members have mentioned insurance. We do not need a new Act statutorily to remove insurance barriers, but so far every move has been so incredibly timid as to he of almost no benefit to Britain. I suspect that exactly the same will prevail in the future, because most of the European internal national insurance arrangements are so nationalistic that no amount of naive hope in the Foreign Office will alter them. For many years, those countries will still maintain a completely different tradition of internal regulation of insurance and there will be almost nil benefit to the United Kingdom.
The same applies to many other areas, including the freedom of capital movements. The Minister will accept that one of the Government's most dramatic moves when they came to office was to sweep away all restraints on capital movement and to free exchange controls. That reduces this type of naive little gesture into insignificance. When one introduces into an Act of this kind the good intention of freeing capital movements but then says that less well developed countries can be exempted, that nullifies the object of the operation. Any country in difficulties will claim that exemption. We know that to be so. We know that if Spain, Greece, Portugal, or, indeed, any other member state gets into difficulties, all these pious hopes will be reduced to nothing. We shall not get those free movements of capital, goods or services if any one of the member states at any moment deems that they do not want them.
However, I believe that Britain will continue to try to stick to those rules, even though many member states find ways round them. That is broadly why we are so unwise to take the step that we are doing. We generally adhere to the rules, because, basically, we want those rules to work. We want freer trade. But when it comes to protecting our national interest, we are not as good at it as other countries and, generally speaking, we lose. Therefore, we are paying a high price in constitutional terms for an empty piece of expectation on the completion of the internal market. Ultimately, I hope that the Bill will be rejected, but certainly these amendments need to be supported.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has done the House a service in pointing out one of the fundamental differences between free trade, be it across the world or between nations such as Germany or Italy in their earlier development, and what we have before

us today, and, indeed, the philosophy behind the so-called internal market and its authorising government. He has helped us to understand, as has the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), that we are not just talking about the economics but about the political power that requires there to be this equivalence of law over the whole area and, indeed, the range of law which is required.
One of the differences in that concept is the need to exercise legislative authority. Whereas free trade can be relatively easy by means of an international treaty, the imposition of common laws, requiring a theoretical perfect market which penetrates into almost every nook and cranny of technical, industrial, social and economic life, is different. It is the latter with which the so-called internal market is concerned, not only in its legal proliferation but in its institutions of origin — the Commission, the Council, and now the so-called Parliament.
In producing that situation, we have an enormous proliferation of paper. If we are to increase the scope and range of the internal market, as Lord Cockfield and the Government want — indeed the Minister talks about "progress"—we shall be lost in a sea of paper. Already, the proliferation of treaties, articles, regulations and their alarming cross-references are almost beyond belief. When people are kind enough to come to me occasionally for some advice or information on these matters I frequently have to tell them that I am now unable to keep up. The fact that I have some assistance from the Clerks at the House shows just how serious the position has become. I daresay that the Minister, who has other responsibilities as well, will come to that position fairly soon.
What happens when we come to the second round of discussion in legislation, when we have the position shown in the diagram which we were talking about earlier in relation to the place of the Council and the Commission? In place of the existing five boxes, there are 13 combinations. In making these laws the mind will begin to boggle, because each one of these steps can be knocked around like a tennis ball or a ball on a pin table before it becomes law. The amount of paper work, both in genesis and in legislation related to the internal market, is almost beyond belief.
I have a feeling that in future years it will be difficult for anybody to try to understand what we are doing in this debate. Power will either flow or will disappear into the sea of paper and people will ask what Parliament was doing in passing these laws about the internal market. They will find great difficulty in understanding the matter because they will need to have five documents: the informal selection sheet, the amendment sheet, the Bill, the European Single Act and the treaty of Rome. Even with those documents and even if they are fairly adept at dealing with them and their inter-relationships, this debate will not be very meaningful.
Because each group of amendments is so wide in its scope, each of these debates, of which this is the second, provides enough scope for a Second Reading. That is why many of the speeches have not been precise about the texts of any of the matters that are before the House. I do not say that by way of complaint: it is a consequence of the nature of the material before us. That material highlights the fact that we are not properly doing our job, even with the time we are taking. I say that not because I want to use up time as some hon. Members might suspect, but for you, Sir Paul, to bear this in mind in relation to any matters on the closure in these groups.
I do not intend to proceed to the scope of a Second Reading speech, but to what I regard as proper Committee work. Committee work is much easier upstairs, where we have desks and tables, than it is in the House. Although I make no complaint about that, I propose to revert to the atmosphere that more often prevails upstairs, because I shall go in detail into some of the text on the internal market. Do I detect a little disappointment from the Treasury Minister? One day people may look at these two days of debate and say that gentlemen of England now abed might well be here. If power goes from this place it may not worry the Whips or the Government, but it will worry the people of Britain.

Mr. Deakins: Does my hon. Friend recall that in 1972 the European Communities Bill spent a large amount of time in the House? Many hon. Members took part in those debates and all sides of the argument were advanced. This Bill cannot be said to be in the same league as the 1972 Bill, but it is a major constitutional Bill and the most important that we have had in the House since 1972. To think that it can be disposed of easily seems to be an over-optimistic view.

Mr. Spearing: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) in some ways. This Bill and the European Single Act treaty— I shall keep on calling it that because it is not an Act in our sense of the word — may be less important in some ways than the European Communities Act 1972 and the debates leading up to it, but in other ways it might turn out to be of even more importance because it may reinforce and accelerate a good deal of what happened subsequent to that Royal Assent to the Bill without the public and without even our colleagues in Parliament knowing.
As several of my hon. Friends will remember, we debated that important 1972 Bill for one or two days a week for one or two months. Not only were we able properly to prepare, but we could catch up with what had gone before. At that time we had a different set up to that which exists now and the Department and the Minister could prepare for the debates and reply to correspondence. We were able to have questions in the House and other debates. This Bill will not give us that opportunity. Perhaps you will bear that in mind, Sir Paul, if there is any tendency to expedite matters.

Sir Russell Johnston: If this Bill is so constitutionally important, why is the House not crammed with hon. Members anxious to speak?

Mr. Spearing: I am glad to be able to reply to that. The hon. Gentleman may not have taken my point on the proliferation of documents. One big difference between the 1972 Bill and this one is that in 1972 people had some idea of what the legislation was about and of its significance. There was at least some national understanding. But there is virtually nothing in this Bill's explanatory memorandum that would give the casual reader an understanding of the contents of the Bill or of the Single European Act.
The Government have only published the Single European Act as it stands. Only a Select Committee has given an as it stands, and as it will be, version. The Government have not published a White Paper telling us

what it does. The Single European Act treaty was not susceptible to the procedures of the European Select Committee on legislation. Because of that, and because alliance Members, who are very much in favour of the legislation, have not participated much in the debate, other than to say that they are in favour of it, general knowledge of the Bill is far less than its importance demands—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is dealing with an intervention, but he is now making a Second Reading speech. However, I am sure that he is about to come to the internal market.

Mr. Spearing: Yes, indeed. I said as much at the beginning of my speech. Perhaps I was making too lengthy a response to the intervention, although I wanted to state the truth of the political situation.
At present, the internal market is regulated under the existing articles of the treaty of Rome. Article 100 is the current regulating article. It says that the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, issue directives for the approximation of such provisions as laid down by law, legislation or administrative action in member states as directly affecting the establishment or functioning of the Common Market.
Article 100 was inserted to cover those instances when the treaty of Rome did not specifically provide power for the approximation of such laws. It was a sort of Henry VIII clause, saying that in order to complete the Common Market, article 100 was to be used. It was quite controversial, because we frequently got legislation under article 100 which pushed at the limits of the vires of the EEC, particularly in technical harmonisation and the environment. That is one reason why both of those topics are now under the European common Act included in the specific treaty vires of the EEC. Thus we are talking about not only greater speed of legislation and adjusted majorities but wider vires as well, all at once. The Single European Act changes the unanimity rule entrenched in article 100 to majority voting under article 100A. That is the article that gill take over. I shall talk about the countries involved in the qualified majority shortly but as we go through these matters I will ask the Minister some questions which I hope she will answer either at the end of the debate or conceivably on clause stand part.
My first point relates to Article 99 of the treaty of Rome and Article 17 of the Single European Act which states that, despite article 100.A. matters relating to:
turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation
shall remain unanimous. That is important, because the Government have made great play—understandably so — by stating that "Oh yes, it is majority for many things, but on these matters we retain unanimity". I think that that will he welcomed by all hon. Members even perhaps by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston).
As I understand it, there are directives relating to VAT which have already passed into EEC legislation and which do not require anything to do with the Single European Act but which require us to harmonise our VAT provisions, irrespective of article 100A in the Treaty. It is suspected that the hapless Chancellor has already had to abide by those directives in harmonising the excise duties on alcohol or perhaps even requiring VAT on buildings.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the next amendment, which refers to fiscal harmonisation. We are now dealing with the internal market, which is a separate matter.

Mr. Spearing: I apologise because I did not realise the scope of these did not go back to Article 99 and I shall now proceed with Article 100. Line 3 of Article 100A states:
the following provisions shall apply for the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 8A.
I have studied these documents fairly frequently over the past few days and I cannot find an Article 8A of the Single European Act there is just an Article 8. I have studied the treaty of Rome and I cannot find an Article 8A there either. At some stage in the debate perhaps we can have an answer from the Minister as to what objectives are found in Article 8A and where it is.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If the hon. Gentleman tries page 8 of the Single European Act he may find it at the bottom of the page.

Mr. Spearing: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I see the point. What has happened is that there is a new Article 8A which will be put into the treaty of Rome and it is not the existing article. It should really say Article 8A applies to the new measures. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It illustrates the difficult maze which we are in. Perhaps I have not been as efficient as the right hon. Gentleman. If we are finding this difficult I fancy it is an answer for the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber.
I now proceed to the point I raised with the right hon. Member for South Down at the end of his speech. That is the political compulsion on the Council of Ministers that it should complete as many of these harmonisation proposals as possible well before 1992. I will not deal at great length with the 300 regulations which Lord Cockfield has waiting in the wings. He has laid them out in the appendix to his voluminous report. We are aware that they will be implemented under Article 100A in due course. I shall refer in a moment to some of the regulations which will be implemented early on.
What is the effect of Article 100B? We are aware that, after 1992, the Commission, as stated in Article 100B, together with each member state, has to draw up an inventory of national laws and regulations which, under Article 100A, have not been harmonised. In other words, before 1992 comes those of the 300 regulations, or others which have been invented by them, not actually past into law will be collated. After that date, the Commission presents the package to the Council of Ministers and the Council—I quote from the provisions of article 100—
acting in accordance with the provisions of Article 100A".
That no doubt means qualified majority, and I ask the Minister to confirm that. This is another piece of cross-reference that we must get sorted out. The article continues:
may decide that the provisions in force in a Member State must be recognised as being equivalent to those applied by another Member State.
The word "may" is slightly misleading. If I read the provision correctly, the Council can read the inventory and say, "Germany has a good system there, and that should be the system for the entire EEC." By a qualified majority, if that is obtained, that becomes the law for the entire EEC.
This sounds improbable at first because of the draconian nature of the approach, but as I read the words of the treaty, that is what is likely to occur.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: rose—

Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman may wish to correct me.

Mr. Powell: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is correct in his interpretation of the second part of the first paragraph of new article 100B in article 19 of the Single European Act. It appears to say that having made a list of non-conforming national laws, there is permission to fudge by saying, "It is all right after all. It is 1992 and we shall regard the national laws as if they conform." It is one of the methods of pretending. It is a youmay-fudge-in-1992 provision. Perhaps my suspicions are ill-founded, but I have received a sort of nod from the Treasury Bench which seems to indicate that it is possible that there is permission to fudge in 1992. I can quite understand the hon. Member for Newham, South being unable to credit that intelligent adults should purport to pass legislation of this sort even in the form of a treaty.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. If I may revert to some of my earlier remarks, this is good Committee work. I am not sure that we can be at all certain from reading the words of the supranational draft legislation which of the several fascinating and equally bizarre solutions is the correct one. The right hon. Gentleman may be right and I shall be happy to give way if the Minister of State wishes to intervene to put us out of our misery. I rather doubt, however, that his solution is correct, and I shall suggest why. If it is correct, all the national states will play for time. They will say that they do not want to reach any conclusions under article 100A, except where there is a majority to push one through. They will wait, because the fudge under article 100B, which is the right hon. Gentleman's solution, is more preferable as they will be able to continue with their own national laws. If that is so, let the Minister say. If on the other hand, the effect of article 100B is the more draconian and perhaps even more startling solution which I have suggested, from a first, third or fifth reading of article 100B, let us know. We are not having ministerial speeches before ministerial replies, although in good Committee work we usually do, but I shall be glad to give way to the Minister if she can tell us which solution is correct. I would suggest that this is a matter of some substance. It may save the Committee and the House of Commons some time if we are able to clear up the issue straight away.

Mrs. Chalker: I am happy to help right hon. and hon. Members on this issue, which I can see has caused a great deal of heart searching if not head scratching. I shall explain what article 100B provides. As the hon. Gentleman said, it provides that in 1992 the Commission will draw up an inventory of national laws which would be harmonised by the end of 1992 under article 100A and which have not been so harmonised. It is then up to the Council to decide be qualified majority on the extent, if any, to which such provisions should be mutually recognised as equivalent.
On page 25 the hon. Gentleman will find a declaration that links with the Commission's obligation under article 8C, which he will find on page 9. He will find that is to take account of the special difficulties that face particular economies.
10.30 pm
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) was almost correct, but not quite, and I can only too well understand why. There has to be a specific decision made by the Council, but the new article would not mean the Council could decide that the standards in any one particular member state would be those adopted by all other member states; would rather enable the Council to decide that member states should give mutual recognition to each other's standards in a particular area in order to allow the free circulation of goods. They would not be applying their own countries' standards on goods from other countries. It would require anyway a specific Council decision in each case. That would remove the worry of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and, I hope, clarifies the matter for the right hon. Member for South Down.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for that ministerial intervention. This is as a Committee should be.
The Minister has said that what will occur is not of the solutions apprehended by the right hon. Member for South Down and by me, but something in between. The Council by a majority, I understand, may say that any two or more member states may voluntarily regard each other's national arrangements as mutally applicable and accept them, so that will become the basis on which the internal market operates as between those named members. I presume that it does not, therefore, apply outside the two or more members mutually recognising the outstanding arrangements. I note that the Minister nods. I am glad that I have it right.

Mrs. Chalker: Subject to some clarification.

Mr. Spearing: This will be different for every area, of course. There cold be different arrangements for nuts and for bolts, and different arrangements for motor cars and farm tractors, because the regulation will operate in a multiple way. My mind begins to boggle even further at the complications that will arise.
I pass to the question of the operation of the qualified majority. Earlier we were talking about qualified majority as though it would cause some problems. I suggest that qualified majority in the nature of this internal market will cause some problems, but not perhaps in the way that Members expect. No one has so far mentioned the way in which the qualified majority will work.
In the Select Committee we got down to work on this, and discovered that in the Council there will be 76 votes. Of this, 54 constitute the qualified majority. Thus one needs 23 votes to stop something going through. As each of the big four have only 10 votes each, it means that if Britain and France together, or Britain and Germany together, or France and Germany together disagree with a proposal in this very important area, they can be outvoted by the rest. It means also that the big two need another country to join them. Therefore, it would be any of the big four, plus either Belgium or the Netherlands, who have five votes each, or Denmark or Ireland, who have three votes each, who could prevent an agreement. In Community support politics, the power usually lies with those who can prevent rather than obtain an agreement, and a small number can prevent an agreement from being reached. A qualified majority is much more difficult to obtain.

Mr. Marlow: In earlier debates attention was drawn to majority voting. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that if one adds together Belgium, Holland, Greece, Luxembourg, Denmark and Portugal, the population of those countries is less than the population of the United Kingdom or of the Federal Republic of Germany, yet those countries have 28 votes, whereas the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany have only 10 votes each? Is that acceptable when we are contemplating the introduction of large-scale majority voting?

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has pointed to one of the difficulties. The consequences of these mathematics have not been examined. There has been a great deal of abstract politicising, but the practical matters to which he referred will be important.
I point out another practical matter — the Mediterranean countries. Their votes amount to 28. Therefore, for a blocking 23, not all of them need to participate. It is not just a question of blocking. It is a question of getting something through. To take again the big four, if Italy, France, Germany and the United Kingdom want to get something through, they cannot do it on their own. They need another 14 votes, in addition to their 40. A great deal of mathematical work will therefore have to be done inside the enlarged Council on this question. That does not mean that things will not move quickly, they may indeed move quickly, because there may be majorities for certain issues. During this important debate on the structure of the internal market it is important to put the votes on the record, because they will be significant.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are circumstances in which the voting arrangements could be very much in our favour? We may benefit from the opportunities presented by the voting system. In order to ensure that we benefit from it, it is important to ensure that scrutiny is effective and that the necessary changes to the scrutiny arrangements to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State referred are effective in order to ensure that we have proper control over what goes on? Therefore, my hon. Friend is right to say that the terms of the understanding that was entered into between the Government of the day, the House and the British people is to some extent being renaged upon by these arrangements.

Mr. Spearing: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Scrutiny Committee published a second special report, to which reference has already been made. There is universal agreement that arrangements of that kind would be helpful to all. I do not want to go into that matter in too great detail, but it so happens that my next point is related to it. The House must be aware of the debate on the harmonisation of the internal market. There will be a great deal of lobbying, not least from commercial firms.

Mr. Leighton: It is said that one arrangement might help us and that another arrangement might not help us, but were we not told during the referendum campaign that we could not lose, that nothing could he done against our will and that we should have a veto?

Mr. Spearing: The referendum related to the Luxembourg veto, but here we are deliberately giving away a treaty veto, which in my view is even more important.
I was talking about the notice that we would get. I have been able to get a copy of regulation 11019/1985, published in Brussels on 3 December 1985. That is a report by the Presidency on the subject of the:
Rolling Presidency Action Programme for the completion of the Internal Market.
So it is very much on what we are discussing.
I was surprised to see this document, which reached me by regular channels although not those of the Scrutiny Committee. I was surprised to read its contents, which I shall describe to the House, because the document was not available through channels open to the Scrutiny Committee. It had not been published in Brussels and the Scrutiny Committee terms of reference refer only to documents published for submission to the Council.
Nevertheless, the document was available, although not the Scrutiny Committee and therefore not to the House. I draw the attention of the House to the list of harmonisation proposals in the appendix. There are many action programmes for this year, some of which have been published in a report. I have seen it in an answer to me today. There are about 100 of them.
The document deals in Annex II with items for discussion at the Ecofin Council. I draw to the attention of the House matters that are now under discussion at the Ecofin Council is relation to future harmonisation. First, there is a proposal:
concerning the harmonisation of income taxation provisions with respect to freedom of movement for workers within the Community.
I can only interpret that, Sir Paul, as a proposal that will harmonise income tax as a means of ensuring freedom of movement of workers.
Were the British people to be told—I hope that the Minister will deal with this in her reply — that discussions were going on in Brussels about the harmonisation of income tax throughout the Community, subject to majority voting, I think that they would be surprised. We would have been surprised in the House.
The document says:
Excise duties: Proposal for a Council decision providing for a standstill ensuring no introduction of new excise duties which give rise to border formalities.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that he is straying again into the realms of amendment No. 7, which will be the subject of our next debate.

Mr. Spearing: I shall have to accept your ruling, Sir Paul. I was quoting, if I can get clarification from you, from a document from the European Presidency entitled
Rolling Presidency Action Programme for the completion of the internal Market.
I can place the document on the Table if you so wish, Sir Paul.
I should have thought that, although there may be an overlap with our debates on amendment No. 7 because of the harmonisation of excise duties and other taxes on alcohol and so on, or indeed on income tax, those are part of the internal market as well as excise.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Of course the internal market is

mentioned in articles 17 and 99 in relation to the harmonisation of taxes, or fiscal harmonisation, but it would make for a tidier debate if we were to deploy those arguments in the next debate.

Mr. Spearing: I assure you, Sir Paul, that I was not going to enlarge on these programmes individually, or indeed at all. I was merely reading out the list in the document. I hope that my final quotation in the series will not transgress the rules of the House.
The list continues in number seven:
Proposal concerning the harmonisation of the structure of excises on mineral oils.
I suppose that that does transgress the rules, so I shall leave the matter there.
All of these matters concern the internal market and show the extent and depth to which we are already involved in discussions. I ask the Minister why the Scrutiny Committee of the House has not had a sight of that document. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has constantly and rightly emphasised that we must get early warning of legislative proposals. Here is an EEC document which we have not had in the House and, although it is contained in an answer to a question from me today, it is not available in the Vote Office.
10.45 pm
The hon. Lady and the Government have constantly said that they are justifying the approval of a reduction in the voting power of the Ministers to a majority on the ground that they wish to make progress in that area. Asked about that in the Select Committee, the hon. Lady resorted to the fundamental belief that any reduction to barriers to trade was a good thing in itself. I would remind the Committee that in command 4715 which was published in 1971 the then Government, talking about the calculation of the effects of these tariff changes on the balance of trade, said in paragraph 45 that they were:
confident that this effect will 1pe positive and substantial, as it has been for the Community.
We know, because the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) mentioned it earlier, that in terms of balance of trade the effects are substantial to the extent of £10 billion a year on manufactured goods, according to the hon. Member for Southend, East, and at least £8·2 billion according to the Government's own official figures in Cmnd. 9781. Therefore the effects have been substantial but negative. I shall ask the Minister a direct question yet again. If the harmonisation so far has resulted in such a diminution of the advantages to Great Britain or the United Kingdom, how does she think that further slight reductions in the harriers to trade and increasing communality of the internal market will reverse those figures? Will they be slowed clown to a speed slower than they are growing already? It appears that the reason for going into the Common Market would be that there would be the reverse effect than that which has occurred. Therefore, when the hon. Lady says progress across the board, whatever it be, she must provide some justification other than that single word.

Mr. Bill Walker: Earlier this evening the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) drew the Committee's attention to the imprecise nature of the articles we are debating tonight with regard to the internal market. He drew attention in a manner which provoked a reaction from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who suggested that the legislation that we deal with in the House of Commons — what he described as controversial legislation—was less productive and useful than the type of legislation we are discussing in these articles. I find that quite offensive, and I hope that he does not object to my saying so.
We spend many hours in Committee dealing with law. I refer particularly to Scots law, which deals with matters that affect the citizens and electorate in Scotland. Scots law, both civil and criminal, impinges on aspects that are affected by what we are discussing in these articles, and anyone who thinks that it does not has never been in business, otherwise he would realise how often it does.

Sir Russell Johnston: I dare say that that is what happened tonight with the Scottish Standing Committee on Legal Aid Bills. The Government chopped the Committee when they were just about defeated.

Mr. Walker: That is right.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Member stick to the Bill and to the amendment?

Mr. Walker: That may have been a type of Exocet missile designed to hit me, because I should possibly have been present in the Committee. Knowing the arrange-ments of the House of Commons, as you do, Sir Paul, you will realise that I would not have been in the Chamber had it not been agreed by the Whip that I could be here. I have no knowledge of any events taking place in the Committee, and I shall not comment, other than to say that if I had been present in the Committee I probably would have made some contribution, as I am trying to do in this Chamber. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I allowed the hon. Member to have a little say in response, but we must get back to the amendment. We are not considering a Bill which may be before another Committee.

Mr. Walker: I am sorry, Sir Paul. I did not hear what the hon. Member for Cumnock, Carrick and Coon Valley said, as he attempted to intervene from a sedentary position. I have no idea whether he was referring to the speech I am making on the articles or being his usual flippant and frivolous self and was referring to something quite different.

Mr. Foulkes: I was merely trying to help you, Sir Paul, by getting the hon. Member for Tayside, North—I can get his constituency right, even though he called me the Member for Coon Valley; he dare not visit my constituency again — back on the subject. There is a wealth of important matters regarding the internal market, such as life assurance and speed limits, with which the Minister could deal from her previous experience in running our transport service, if the hon. Member would just get on with it.

Mr. Walker: From that intervention, Sir Paul, you will realise that it is the last time I shall invite the hon. Gentleman's children to ride my children's ponies.
I do not think that the Government's motives in terms of the articles are suspect in any way. The Government say that the articles are necessary if the internal market is to function effectively. They will allow freer trade between the member states of the Community. If our experience showed that there was a need to introduce compulsory harmonisation, I should think that the Committee would be sympathetic. However, we have seen the barriers that exist against insurance finance and capital. Scotland has a great interest in those areas. More importantly, there are the barriers that have been put up against our major export product—whisky.
Our experience to date has shown that attempts to introduce harmonisation and to make the existing articles under the treaty of Rome work — I believe that the articles are adequate—have not worked.
My constituency is not simply affected by the barriers placed on the export of whisky. Under the existing articles it should be possible to stop the dumping—as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said — of products from Europe, especially from eastern Europe. Holland exports raspberry pulp. However the raspberries are grown in eastern Europe. The Dutch export to other member states, and especially to the United Kingdom, more raspberries in the form of pulp than they grow. It should be possible to prevent this under the existing articles of the treaty of Rome. It is not helping the free market. Over the past five years, there has been a continuous battle to prevent this dumping.
My constituents and I ate concerned that more articles will be included in the treaty which are imprecise, as shown by the right hon. Member for South Down. This is not the type of legislation to which we are accustomed. The provisions have deliberately been left vague. Those who wish to cheat can use them to do so and those who wish to implement them will be uncertain about their powers. I hope that we shall carefully consider what is meant by qualified majority voting and the possible problems that will arise.
I look forward to the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister on my concerns. There is no doubt that all the aspects of concern which I have mentioned could and should have been dealt with under the existing articles of the treaty of Rome. Why do we need all these new articles which the amendments are designed to remove? Are we falling into the trap of having more legislation for legislation's sake?
The European court makes its judgments on political grounds, not the precise nature of the law, as we in Britain understand it. In view of that and "qualified majority" voting, are we not entering into a minefield where, instead of the internal market developing in the wa that the Government and most hon. Members would wish —towards a system of free trade—we have a bureaucracy which works its way through mountains of paper and produces little, and most certainly not free trade?

Mr. Deakins: We are debating the internal market. I have not yet heard a right hon. or hon. Member define precisely what that is. The listener outside or the person reading Hansard might get the impression that we enjoyed a certain state of affairs in relationships with the Community, which was not currently an internal market. But, hey presto, this legislation and the Single European Act come along and we are to be given a single internal market. That is far from the facts.
We do "enjoy" — if that is the right word — the benefits of an internal market within the Community. That is what all the propaganda in 1971–72 and 1975 from the CBI and other institutions on behalf of British industry was about. We were told, "We need to join Europe", in the first case, and "We need to stay in Europe," in the 1975 referendum campaign, to get the benefit of the vast home market of 220 million people. We are now being told that is not enough and that we must further develop the internal market. We are entitled to look at Britain's experience until now in the internal market before the Committee decides whether it is worth going on to complete the process. Part 3 of the 14th report in 1984–85 of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, House of Lords Paper 226, on "European Union" is entitled "The internal Market". One must be grateful to their Lordships for having defined the internal market so succinctly in a way that has not been done in this debate. Paragraph 28 states:
Put simply, it should be as easy for a British company to find a market for its goods, services or capital, or for an individual to find work, in France, Denmark or Italy as it is for a Scottish company or individual to do so in England.
That may inspire a few horse laughs from Scottish people who are unemployed and wish to travel south of the border. I regret to say that Dr. Johnson's famous remark about the most enjoyable sight for a Scotsman being the high road to England no longer applies in terms of employment. A Scottish person would have to come very far south to stand any chance of finding employment, and even then he might be unable to obtain adequate housing.
11 pm
Their Lordships continued:
Of course, there will always be problems created by distance, regional preferences and language … But they should not be aggravated by man-made barriers, of which the most obvious are tariffs, quotas and immigration restrictions … The wider the home market in which European industry can develop, the better equipped will it be to cope effectively in the world market. This simple truth … is a fundamental reason why completion of the internal market must not he delayed.
I would not take the entire Committee with me— not even Opposition Members—if I said that that is neither a simple nor a self-evident truth. Experience has belied that statement.
Paragraph 34 of the report states:
The creation and maintenance of a genuinely free internal market for all forms of economic activity crossing the frontiers of sovereign states necessarily involves some incursion into the domain of national sovereignty.
There we have the sovereignty issue once again.
The Government's attitude to the internal market is complacent, as is their attitude to the completion of the internal market as set out in the Single European Act, which will be put into British law by this Bill. They seem to be oblivious to, and certainly ignore, the industrial decline of Britain. Their views are a triumph of hope over the experience of the past 14 years.
The Government's attitude was summarised in a reply that I received on 20 May from the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I asked him:
What advantages will be available to United Kingdom industry when the European Economic Community market is completed"—
that is the purpose of this part of the Bill—
and to what extent does he envisage that United Kingdom industry may derive relatively greater benefits than industry in other EEC countries.

That is the crux of the matter. It is not a question whether there will be more benefits generally, but whether we shall do relatively better than others. The Minister replied:
Completion of a unified liberal"—
I do not know where that term comes from, but it is in his answer—

Sir Russell Johnston: It is a good term.

Mr. Deakins: It has only a small "1". It states:
Completion of a unified liberal internal market in the Community will benefit British industry through removal of barriers to trade with other member states and is one important condition for the creation of a European industrial capability which could compete effectively on world markets"—
whatever that may mean. I have not come across that expression before, and it needs rather more precise definition than it has been given so far.
The answer continues:
The precise balance of advantage may of course vary from sector to sector depending upon the United Kingdom's competitive position in each, but we"—
the Government—
believe that there should be clear net benefits for United Kingdom business as a whole."—[Official Report, 22 May 1986; Vol. 98, c. 162.]
I hope that I have not robbed the Minister of something that she intended to say when she replied to the debate. That appears to be the Government's attitude.
When we discuss the internal market, the Government always say, "We are doing very well. Our export percentage is increasing and we hope, not necessarily to improve our manufacturing performance, although we hope that we can, to rely on the service sector as our salvation, because there are tremendous barriers to our services." One accepts that entirely. Therefore, the Government are pressing ahead quickly with the completion of the internal market, have been willing to make sacrifices of sovereignty, and to make concessions to Community institutions and the Community federalists because they believe that Britain will gain advantages from the completion of the internal market.
I hope to show that those advantages must rest entirely in the service sector. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) speaks with some authority on matters to do with the service sector. I believe that he has connections in the City, and knows much about these issues. It would have been helpful to have the benefit of his advice as to how the service sector will take advantage of the internal market, once it is completed.
The Government are extremely complacent. What is the Common Market's attitude towards completion of the internal market? I shall refer to a Presidency report to the council, dated 9 December 1985. It is entitled, "Rolling Presidency Action Programme for the Completion of the Internal Market". In the first annex, the report says that a number of areas have been identified for adoption in the course of 1986. I shall not weary the Committee by going through all the areas. However, there are pages of them, ranging from the control of goods to the removal of physical harriers. For example, the report refers to the
Duty-free admission of fuel contained in the fuel tanks of commercial motor vehicles".
Other areas include veterinary and, I think, psycho-sanitary controls. However, I am not sure, as the text says, phytosantary controls. Paragraph 10 involves
Production and trade in medicated feeding stuffs.


There is nothing wrong with any of that. However, another section is rather ill-advisedly headlined, "Control of Individuals". Paragraph 29 refers to the
sixth directive relative to exemptions in international travel: increased to 400 ecu.
I think that that has something to do with duty-free allowances. However, I shall not weary the Committee with the rest of that passage.
There is then a section on the free movement of goods, with several directives or proposals in the pipeline. We then come to central proposals concerning the approximation of laws. I shall not go into that, because it will be raised during our next debate.
There is then a section on food law. I shall just quote paragraph 41:
General directive on food additives (in part modification of existing directives)".
That is to come up as well under the internal market. There is then a passage on pharmaceuticals and high technology medicines. In this instance, the opinion of the European Assembly is awaited on proposals in that sector.
I shall not weary the Committee by listing those things that will probably come about as a result of the Presidency's intention to complete the internal market. Indeed, on 1 July, we become president.
I come, instead, to the passage entitled,
Free movement for Labour and the Professions.

Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman cited food additives, but does he not agree that the introduction of harmonising regulations on food additives has been of great benefit to the people of this country?

Mr. Deakins: I do not for a moment deny the truth of that. But I do not wish to anticipate any remarks that I may make in a later debate on the clause concerning the environment. I shall then go into the issue in more detail, and will ask whether Community action is necessarily the proper way of going about genuine international cooperation. I shall not be tempted from my chosen path, however, even if it is for the benefit of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston).
Under the heading of "The Free Movement of Labour in the Professions", which is part of the programme for completion of the internal market, there are proposals for a council directive on specific training in general medical practice. I am not sure about the implications of that. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether that means Community directives about the content of medical education in Britain. There is also a proposal for a directive to faciliate freedom and to provide services in insurance other than life insurance. I am sure that that appeals to the Government, and one can only applaud it, provided that there are appropriate regulations.
Transport is also part of the internal market. I had not realised that before, but I am quoting from an official Community document, so it must be so. In paragraph 88, there is a reference to maritime transport. British merchant seamen and the British shipping industry face the chilling words:
freedom to provide services in the sea transport sector.
I speak as a complete lay person on this matter. If this is to mean greater competition in coastal shipping, that might or might not be of benefit to Britain. I am assuming that as the Government are in favour of the completion of the internal market, there will be a net benefit. I stress that

it has to be a net benefit, because there is no point in gaining benefits across the Channel in the rest of the Community if we are to have more disadvantages on this side of the Channel.
There are then sections on taxation and tax harmonisation, all of which will be considered in the next debate. All this is in the Community rolling action programme, and that is what we shall be approving in principle. I am not saying that we shall be approving every item, because they will have to come before the Economic and Social Council, and there must be Commission proposals to the Council, to Finance, Transport and Environment Ministers and goodness knows what else. A programme of secondary legislation will be coming before the Committee chaired with such distinction by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). in the next few years, to complete the process of the internal market by 1992.

Mr. Spearing: Is it not clear that the Government's philosophy, as described by the Minister, is that they will agree to all this because they agree that integration of the internal market will be good for Britain in the round and so, although it is nasty medicine, it is better to be taken because the gain to Britain will be better in the end? Is that not what the Minister said, and does it not show that there will not be many noes from British Ministers to any of these proposals?

Mr. Deakins: We can look forward to the Minister's reply. I understand that the hon. Lady is—I hesitate to say "in difficulties", because she is a competent Minister —in a difficult position. She has to answer debates over the whole range of Government policy, and all Departments are involved in the provisions of the Single European Act. My heart goes out to her, and I am not trying to make her task any more difficult. I imagine that she will be advised during these debates by at least one official from the relevant Departments concerned, and that as we are on the internal market, one assumes that officials from the Department of Trade and Industry, and perhaps from the Treasury, are here.
I am not sure whether the Committee is aware of the fact that the Government may be having some second thoughts about the completion of the internal market. They are dedicated to the principles but are not so certain about the actual mechanisms. I have a quotation from that excellent publication Agence Europe of 20 January 1986, No. 4242 page 3, which refers to the Economy Finance Council
agreement on the mandate of the group studying the suppression of fiscal boundaries and on the EEC position with regard to export credits.
The second part is not relevant to this debate, but the first part, about fiscal boundaries, is. It refers to the "Economy and Finance Council", which I assume means the Economic and Finance Council, and says that it
has quickly adopted the decisions which were on its agenda, namely: a mandate for the ad hoc group whose task it is to study the abolition of fiscal boundaries within the context of the creation of the unified economic area by 1992.
I draw the attention of the Committee to the words used in this official resolution of the Economic and Finance Council, on which a British Minister must have been represented, in referring to the internal market as a "unified economic area". I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether there is a difference, and if so of what that difference consists. I suspect that this is again a


problem of translation, but one would have thought that as our Government are so keen on the internal market, they would have made sure that the words "internal market", when translated into or out of the Community languages, meant the same thing."
I am a little puzzled by the use of the words "unified economic area". The report from Agence Europe contains the text of the decision:
The Council, following on from its decision of principle taken on December 9 last to set up an ad hoc group, has entrusted this group, comprising chiefs of fiscal administration or other personnel representatives of the Finance Ministers, with the task of examining, on the basis of the third part of the 'White Paper' of the commission,"—
that is, the White Paper on the completion of the internal market—
what measures are necessary to ensure the establishment and the workings of the Internal Market before the end of the year 1992. It is understood that other measures, different from those proposed by the Commission, can be introduced into this study.
11.15 pm
This ad hoc group will not merely work within a remit given it by the Council, with parameters and limits on the subjects and measures it can discuss for completing the internal market; it will also be able to consider other measures and proposals no doubt from outside bodies or individuals which will then go into the melting pot and be put to Ministers in due course for consideration by the EEC Council and then by the House.
The adopted decision continues:
The Group will report back regularly to the ECOFIN Council, by way of the Committee of Permanent Representatives, the first occasion being at its meeting on March 10 1986.
There has already been at least one meeting of this ad hoc group and a report back to the ECOFIN Council. I wonder what happened at that Council meeting. On this occasion, according to Agence Europe,
Several delegations have indicated in the minutes their concerns or their wishes concerning the work of this group. In particular, Denmark and France insist that the budgetary implications are duly examined.
I confess that we have heard nothing from the Government about the budgetary implications of completing the internal market. By "budgetary", Denmark and France may have been referring to the EEC budget. However, they might have meant—I would like the Minister to clarify this point— there own national budgets. I can see that the Minister is shaking her head, so I assume that they were referring to the EEC budget. If they are referring to the EEC budget, the House and its Committees should consider the matter. If the completion of the internal market is to have budgetary implications over and above the other strains in the financing of the Common Market, then heaven help us. I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government are aware of the budgetary implications. Presumably they will be adverse rather than beneficial.
The report mentioned other delegations:
Ireland and Greece request that the problems of the least well off be taken into consideration, in the perspective of the economic cohesion of the Community.
I will not detain the Committee with that issue, because that matter will come up again in the debate on regional policy when we discuss structual funds. Although I have not pursued that line here, it is relevant to the internal market.
If we are to benefit from the internal market being completed by 1992, the sceptics —I am horrified by the thought of an internal market by 1992 — have every right to look back at the internal market that has existed since 1 January 1973 or after the transitional period January 1978, and consider that eight-year period or the 13-year period, and see how this country has benefited. I need hardly mention to the Committee that the impact of the internal market so far has been pretty disastrous for Britain. Other factors have been at work, but no one can deny that the internal market which was so much prized by the CBI, the Institute of Directors and almost all the economists with a few honourable exceptions in 1971–72, has not lived up to expectations.
We are therefore entitled to ask the Minister—if my facts are correct — why should we believe that our expectations of the completion of the internal market by 1992 will make any difference in the trend of the past eight to 10 years in our trading relationships with the Community?
Let me give the Committee a few examples. The EEC's share of our exports—I am sure that the Minister will be making this point—has increased from 33 per cent. in 1970 to 49 per cent. in 1985. We have done well on exports. It sounds impressive. But we should also bear in mind that one quarter of our exports in 1985 was occasioned by North sea oil. There was no North sea oil in the figure that I have quoted for 1970.
What really matters for the future of Britain is trade in manufactures. Here the increase in the share of exports from Britain to the EEC is some 32 to 42 per cent.— quite a creditable performance. No one is denying that our exporters have gone into the market with a fair amount of vigour.
But the other side of the coin is the increase in our imports from the EEC. They have gone up from 35 per cent. to 54 per cent. That is almost twice as large an increase. In other words, the net benefit has been to the other Community countries, not to the United Kingdom. We are now in the position that for every £100-worth of goods that we export to the EEC, we import £143-worth. We should look sceptically at the internal market.
Indeed, other EEC Governments, not merely our own, are putting a lot of emphasis on the internal market. They are also putting it on competition from outside the Community to explain the disappointed expectations of the consumers, taxpayers and people who live in the Common Market countries. They are now trying to divert attention from the failure of the Common Market to deliver the goods, metaphorically — indeed, literally in some cases—and jobs, by a propaganda war against the Japanese. But the EEC deficit with Japan is insignificant compared with the British deficit with the rest of the EEC. We have Ministers calling for tough measures against Japan, but we never hear Ministers talking about the need for any measures to deal with that, although I do understand that they would be illegal.
Let me give the Committee a few examples. It is right that the Committee should be aware, when considering whether to proceed by approving steps towards the completion of the internal market by 1992, what has happened during the incomplete internal market of the past eight to 12 years.
Let us consider the number of jobs lost in some of our major industries. In the cotton industry 155,000 people were employed in 1970. In December 1985 that was down


to 39,000. Most of that time we have been in the Common Market and we have had the advantages of the larger home market and the incomplete internal market. The number of people employed in the wool trade is down from 136,000 in 1970 to 41,000 in December 1985. The hosiery industry—I am giving the largest examples—is down from 136,000 to 82,000—not quite such a big drop but still substantial in an industry which one would have expected would have done better in the Common Market than outside.
The carpet industry is down from 46,000 employees in 1970 to 16,000 in December 1985 and the man-made fibres industry is down from 55,000 employees in 1970 to 14,000 in December 1985. What hope is there that those figures will increase as a result of the completion of the internal market? Yet we have a Government who at least pay lip service to the need to increase employment in Britain and reduce unemployment.
I challenge the Minister to say in what way the completion of the internal market will reverse those figures of jobs lost since 1970, many of which have been lost since 1 January 1973.
I have no wish to bore the Committee, but let me give some facts which need to go on the record and which we need to take into account as a Committee when deciding whether to support the amendments. The iron and steel industry employed 448,000 people in 1970 and in December 1985 was down to 146,000 people. The coal industry employed 371,000 people in the earlier year and 197,000 people in 1985.
The motor vehicle industry was to have been the boom industry. I remember Lord Stokes and others telling us in those grand days that we had to go into the Common Market or the British motor industry would not survive. We are in the Common Market, and not so long ago the Government were considering, I think unwisely, but some people would disagree, selling off the British motor industry because it had got into such a disastrous state that it could no longer sustain itself. That is rather unfair to the remaining bit of the British motor industry, but, be that as it may, that industry wanted to go into the Common Market. When it was privately owned it spent lots of money in 1971–72 and in the referendum campaign of 1975 persuading the public that there would be a boom in the British motor industry and success for it in the Common Market, yet employment has dropped from 538,000 to 281,000 in 15 years. No doubt the figures for road and rail vehicles include buses and trucks, and employment there fell from 65,000 to 39,000.
I need hardly worry the Committee by talking about the shipbuilding industry, because it was the subject of recent debates. The fall in employment in that industry has been catastrophic, and even the figures that I have for December 1985 are woefully out of date. Mechanical engineering is the foundation of our technology and manufacturing, and employment in that industry has dropped from 1,074,000 in 1970 to 782,000 in December 1985. In chemicals we were supposed to be leading the charge into Europe with ICI and firms like that, but employment there is down from 373,000 to 246,000. Aerospace is another high-tech industry and not one of the smokestack industries, yet employment there is down from 234,000 to 153,000.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is going through a sort of catalogue of employment in the various industries. We are talking about the balance of trade, and not necessarily about the balance of employment. Throughout the European Community there have been improvements and increases in productivity. The Committee would be interested to hear from the hon. Gentleman what has happened to output in the industries that he has mentioned. There have been massive increases in productivity, particularly since 1979 when this Government came to power. It would be useful to have that information from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deakins: I do not deny for one moment the force of the main point made by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that there have been increases in productivity, but there are two ways of ensuring increases in productivity, and the Government have taken the wrong course. If we continue towards an internal market in 1992, they will continue to take the wrong course—if we are unfortunate enough to have the present Government returned to power.
Productivity can be increased by reducing the work force and maintaining output, or it can be improved by maintaining the work force and increasing output. Surely the second is infinitely preferable to the first. This Government have been reducing the work force and not even maintaining the output. I shall come to that in a moment.

Mr. Bill Walker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one should maintain one's work force and increase output. The debate is about markets. It is customers that keep jobs in being and create jobs. The problem is that all the promises that were made about the opportunities that would be in the Common Market because of the massive increase in customers have not materialised. This debate is about why they have not materialised. That is why we should consider carefully what we are doing, to ensure that we do not make the situation even worse.

Mr. Deakins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and later in my speech I shall come to his point about the deficiencies in British industry. At this stage I am anxious to ensure that the Committee has the facts upon which it can base a judgment whether the completion of the internal market by 1992 is a good thing for Britain and the British people.
We are here to legislate for our people and not for anyone else, and certainly not for the people in western Europe. They have their own Parliaments to look after their interests and it is not up to us to do that. We have to represent and look after the interests of the people who sent us here, regardless of their politics.
I shall now turn to the overall situation. In 1970 we had a small surplus on the trade balance in manufactures with the original six countries of the EEC. Our total deficit with the EEC is now running at an annual rate—I stress annual rate because we have figures only for the first three months of this year — of £12,000 million. This is a disaster story. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said earlier that our trade with the rest of the world has been relatively better. In fact, it has done much better. In 1970 our trade balance in manufactures with the rest of the world outside the EEC was a plus of £1·7 billion, and currently, at an annual rate, using the first three months of the year and grossing them up, it is running at £3·7


billion. We have improved our industrial and trade performance with the rest of the world, but our performance with the Common Market has been a disaster.
11.30 pm
The internal market is entirely unbalanced. The balance of trade in specific industries is disastrous. The Government are fond of using something that is called the export-import ratio, and I can give the figures for some of our major industries. I shall deal first with the share of our imports that is held by the other Common Market countries. In plastics they have 78 per cent. of our market, and in other chemicals they have 67 per cent. In textiles they have 67 per cent.— so much for the multi-fibre arrangement and that being a protection for our textile industry. The job losses in our textile and clothing industries have come not as a result of Third world imports but as a consequence of imports from the rest of the Common Market. Conservative Members may say that that is a good thing—that is up to them—but I do not think that it is.
The Community share of our imports of iron and steel was 72 per cent. In paper it was 35 per cent. In metal manufactures, the most basic element in manufacturing industry, the share of the other members of the Community was 59 per cent. They have 43 per cent. of our imports in manufacturing materials. As for road vehicles, they have 79 per cent. of our market. They have 25 per cent. of other transport equipment. Office equipment is supposed to be one of the new areas of technology in which we are supposed to be buzzing ahead, but the rest of the Community has 43 per cent. of our market. As for simpler products, it has 71 per cent. of our furniture market, 68 per cent. of the footwear market and 43 per cent. of the clothing market. It has 54 per cent. of all manufactures. That is a pretty disastrous picture. I shall not weary the Committee by quoting the export-import ratios, but they show an equally bad picture. If anybody doubts that, I shall be happy to quote the figures.

Mr. Marlow: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to look at the picture objectively. It has been said from the Government Front Bench—I think that it is the fact—that we have oil from the North sea, a commodity which we are exporting. That means that we are exporting fewer manufactures. The fact that we have oil in the North sea has an effect on our currency, which in a way makes us less competitive than we would otherwise be. Would the hon. Gentleman like to stitch these factors into his argument? If he does so, he might have a slightly different assessment of the situation.

Mr. Deakins: I am not sure when the hon. Gentleman is an economist, but I am not. I would hate to be drawn into something which, although relevant to the internal market, would take me beyond the brief that I have prepared for myself. I am not an expert and I am not at all certain what is the balance of advantage of the internal market so far in respect of North sea oil, for example. It would be possible to argue with the Government about their depletion policy.
The hon. Gentleman challenged me earlier to produce figures on output. He said that we are becoming more productive and that one would expect employment to fall, but I would not expect it to fall as disastrously as it has. I have some figures on output which I shall quote briefly.

Steel is basic to manufacturing capacity. In 1979 we produced 28·3 million tonnes, and in 1985, 15·7 million tonnes. That was a fall of 45 per cent. Spain is now a member of the Community, but it was not in 1979, when it produced 7·4 million tonnes of steel. In 1985 it produced 14·9 million tonnes. In 1970 Italy was producing just over 17 million tonnes, and it is now producing 23 million tonnes. France, which was producing 23 million tonnes, has reduced its output to 18·8 million tonnes. The Belgian figure has fallen from 12·9 million tonnes to 10·7 million, and in West Germany production has gone down from 45 million tonnes to 40·3 million.
Those figures do not mean much without considering the percentages that they represent. Britain's steel production has fallen by 45 per cent. The next highest loss occurred in France, where production fell by 21 per cent. — bad perhaps, but by no means so disastrous as the fall in our rate of steel production. In Belgium it fell by 15 per cent., while in West Germany, our main industrial competitor in the world, steel production fell by only 10 per cent. Spain, while outside the Common Market, managed to increase its steel production by 92 per cent. and Italy, a member of the EEC, increased production in steel by 57 per cent.
How is it possible, if burdens are supposed to be shared by the members of the Community under Commission guidelines and injunctions, that that should have been the state of affairs? Let us not forget that under the European Steel and Coal Community, there is no veto; the Luxembourg compromise does not apply. There is majority voting. Because of the lack of a veto, we have not been able to protect our steel industry.
I confess that I do not have the answer to the obvious counter-question: why have other Community countries been better able to protect their steel industries? Ministers must answer that question if they wish to claim that regardless of what went before, we shall do better when the internal market is completed by 1992.
Motor car production is an interesting story. We recall what Lord Stokes said in 1970 and 1971. I do not believe in capital punishment, but he should have been taken out and shot at dawn. In view of the poor performance of British Leyland over the years, one can say, "Pour encourager les autres," as was said of Admiral Byng in the mid-18th century. A more disastrous entrepreneur it would be difficult to imagine— [Interruption.] I am thinking of ancient times. One might mention Sir Bernard Docker, who was largely responsible for the decline of the British motorcycle industry—from a world market share of 95 per cent. in 1946 to virtually nil within 20 years. They are the sort of people who will be leading us into what we are told will be a wonderful internal market that will completed by 1992.
To consider car production, we must take a different base year and compare 1972 with 1984, roughly equivalent to our time in the Common Market. In 1972, United Kingdom production totalled 1·9 million cars. It is now down to 900,000, a fall of over 50 per cent.

Mr. Marlow: If car production has increased in France, Germany and Italy and has reduced in the United Kingdom since we have been in the EEC, is it fair to blame the Common Market for that? Could it be that those other countries have produced better cars more efficiently and that they have not been bogged down by the sort of trade


union legislation that was introduced by Labour Administrations here, with the appalling industrial relations that followed?

Mr. Deakins: I accept the hon. Gentleman's major thesis, which is that not all the disasters I have catalogued —and I have more of them to relate—have been entirely the fault of the Common Market. I am simply asking how, if that has been our performance so far in the internal market—incomplete though it is, and we have been in it for 13 years—the Minister can say confidently, as she no doubt will, that there will be a beneficial impact on all the factors involved as a result of the internal market being completed. It cannot be logical for the Minister to argue from that standpoint. She will have to address the arguments from a totally different premise.
To take up the hon. Gentleman's point, he is wrong, according to the figures that I have, on car production. Spanish car production has increased in the 12 years from 1972 to 1984 by 92 per cent. German car production is up marginally 8 per cent., but ours is down over 50 per cent. Belgian car production has fallen by a mere 5 per cent. and French by 9 per cent.; and the poor old Italians have gone from 1·7 million to 1·4 million, a fall of about 17 per cent., which is not very satisfactory. None of these is remotely comparable with the fall in British car production. There must be special factors at work in the British economy that should make the Committee sceptical about the chances of our being able to take advantage for the benefit of the people we represent in the completion of the internal market by 1992.
Those are all the figures that I wish to give the Committee on manufacturing output and jobs. Even on our trade with the other countries of the EEC, we have done extremely badly compared with other countries in the Community. I could quote various answers—I will not weary the Committee with them — to show how bad relatively our trade performance in manufactured goods has been compared with our competitors in the Common Market.
Ministers have been cunning in the last few years when challenged on our poor trade performance as against that of the rest of the Common Market and said that our exports have gone up and, moreover, the total share of our trade with other Community countries has gone up substantially, as though in itself that was a good thing. The civil servants who provide Ministers with that sort of brief deserve a kick in the bottom, if not worse, because that is an entirely irrational argument. There are no premises for it, and it does not lead to any conclusion—certainly not to the conclusions that Ministers seek to draw.
It does not matter with which part of the world our trade is conducted. What matters is the total amount of our trade and the net balance of our trade. If we did all our trade with the United States of America and none with the rest of the world, that would be an unbalanced picture —and, indeed, it is very unlikely—but, provided we had a good trade balance, the country would be in a good trading position. The more trade that we do with the European Community, the worse our trading becomes, from which I draw the conclusion that the Government are marching in entirely the wrong direction. Our trade balance with the Community is going downhill steadily. Regardless of what the Government do—and regardless

of what even a Labour Government are likely to be able to do under Common Market rules and regulations, because we will not necessarily reverse that decline—our trade balance will get worse. Eventually we will end up by doing 80 or 90 per cent. of our total trade with the rest of the Community in this vast internal market, yet we will be having trade deficits of £20 billion or £30 billion a year. How can that be a good thing—to do more and more trading in a vast internal market, yet do worse at it?
It is how one conducts trade, not with whom one trades, that matters and, above all, the overall trade performance, not the areas of the world with which one trades.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is being too optimistic about our trade with the Common Market. Has he seen the recent figures which indicate that our share of the market of the original six manufacturing countries is now 7 per cent., and it was 6·1 per cent. before we joined the Common Market? Does he accept that the substantial increase in our trade with the EEC is simply because the Common Market now is twice the size that it was when we started?

Mr. Deakins: I think that the hon. Gentleman's logic is irrefutable. It is not for me to provide the answer. That ought to come from the Government, and that is what we are considering.
The counter-argument — I still await any evidence, and I have been giving counter-evidence to persuade the Committee to vote for these amendments or, indeed, for one of them—must come from the Government and be based on different premises and figures to show that we have done well and can do better. I should like to know what they are. I read Hansard every weekend, and the figures are not in there. To prove, as I have done, that we have done disastrously badly and then to be told, "Forget all that; we will do marvellously well in future", as the Minister's reply that I read out earlier showed, is whistling in the dark. It is not merely over-optimistic; it is absolutely foolish to adopt that attitude.
One of the features of the internal market is free capital movement, upon which my party holds certain views. Britain's investment performance in the Common Market has not been at all good. There has been a much greater outflow of funds from Britain to the rest of the Community than there has been from the rest of the Community to Britain. I do not know whether that reflects upon the economy or the Government. When there was a Labour Government, it would have been possible to say that the capitalists in the rest of the Common Market did not like investing in a so-called socialist Britain—which it was not—or in a so called socialist Government, or Labour Government. One would have expected that trend to have been reversed after seven years of a Conservative Government, but that is far from the case.
11.45 pm
The figures are absolutely devastating. The total inward investment, excluding oil, from the rest of the EEC was £80·7 million in the three years 1970, 1971 and 1972. In the years since 1973, when we joined the Community, total inward investment, excluding oil, from the rest of the Community was £800 million. But what about the figures of outward investment? Compared with the £80 million of inward investment, there was an outflow, before we entered the EEC, of £371 million. That represents investment by the British people in the EEC. Over the 12


years since we joined the EEC that figure has grown larger and larger. In fact, £2·5 billion have been invested in the rest of the Community. The balance of investments has therefore grown worse since we entered the Common Market.
I ask the Minister of State to tell the House how that trend will be reversed. Is there to be even more liberalisation of capital movement? Other factors will be at work that will make it more difficult for any Government of this country to move investment in the direction that they wish.
Since May 1979, our unemployment rate has tripled. Only one other country in the Common Market has suffered such a serious rate of decline. That is Greece, which was not in the Common Market in 1973. Unemployment in the other EEC countries has certainly increased, but by nowhere near so fast a rate. Within the Community, Britain is a special case, yet by promoting the concept of a free internal market, free from all barriers and a free, unified economic area by 1992, the Minister is ignoring completely Britain's experience and the attitude of British industry. She is being over-optimistic.
I shall not weary the Committee by referring to the disaster of our membership on jobs, output, trade and investment. When we try to justify the Bill and the completion of the internal market we shall have to tell the British people something different from what they were told in the 1975 referendum campaign. What were they told by the "Britain in Europe, Yes" campaign? The House will recall that there were three factions: yes, no and, in the middle, the Labour Government who said, "On the whole, yes." The referendum voted in favour of entry by a majority of two to one.
What did the "Britain in Europe, Yes" campaign say? It said, under a bold headline:
Staying in protects our jobs.
I saw posters all over the country during the campaign that showed a group of ardent, young apprentices, and the caption on the posters was "Jobs for the boys."
We know some of the boys who got jobs as a result of our entry into the Common Market. There were not many of them. One or two of them are still Members of the House. The jobs that were referred to then were not those jobs.
The British people were told in 1975 that staying in would protect their jobs. What else were they told? They were told that we could get advantages from the Community market and the immediate effect on trade, industrial production, investment prospects and hence on jobs if we went out of the market would be disastrous.
The effect of staying in has been disastrous. I am not attributing all our ills to membership of the EEC, but a great proportion of them. That was what people were told about the EEC by its ardent advocates.
What were people told by the British Labour Government in 1975? Well, there is "The New Deal". There was, said the Government of the time to the British people:
a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic and Monetary Union.
We shall be debating that subject some time later in our proceedings. The "New Deal" said:
This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed.

The Labour Government did not tell people that there were other, more real threats from remaining in the Common Market at that time; those threats have been borne out by the evidence that I have supplied to the Committee.
I turn now to the deficiencies of British industry. I am not just lambasting British industry here, because industries in other countries can also be inefficient. The trouble is that our industry happens to be much more inefficient than most of the others. I start by talking about management attitudes. These have been criticised even by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He talked about the need to change management attitudes. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, towards the end of his term of office as Prime Minister of this great country, that we have done everything that British industry has asked us to do, everything, yet we do not get the performance that we are entitled to expect. That was said soon after we had joined the Common Market.
I could regale the Committee for hours, although I promise not to do so, Sir Paull, with my experiences as a junior Minister for five years in a Labour Government and horror stories of British industry from around the world. If I was challenged to do so, I would be very happy to oblige. Some of the stories are very amusing, but I do not wish to detain the Committee with relatively minor matters that are incidental to my main theme.
There are many stories and I shall give one example although this is not just to show that one swallow is the harbinger of summer. The story shows a typical management attitude. A British firm received an inquiry from a buyer in Yugoslavia for a certain product. The management eventually two weeks later wrote back to the potential buyer in Yugoslavia saying that they made the thing he was after —it does not really matter what it was — but that in order to obtain it they would have to contact their agent in Brussels who had the mandate or licence to market the goods in western and central Europe.
Needless to say, the Yugoslavian buyer did not contact the agent in Brussels, because the day after he had sent his inquiry to firms in France and Germany they had sent sales representatives to his home town and factory in Yugoslavia, while the British were still sending letters and considering their attitude.
There is a horror story of Brutish business firms even in the 1970s answering trade inquiries from Latin America and sending the letters, would you believe it, by seamail not airmail. I could go on but I will not. There are plenty of similar stories.
The attitude of British management, which I blame not exclusively but largely for all this, was summarised by no friend of mine but a friend, I would think, of Tory Members. In the mid-1970s a bunch of capitalists, the German chamber of commerce in Britain, published a report. It was a nine-hour wonder, because it was so embarrassing that it was dropped by the press and the Government like a hot brick. The report said, in effect —do not forget that the German chamber of commerce is no friend of the Labour party or of British trade unions or necessarily Britain — that the basic trouble with British industry is that British management treats its workers like dirt. Those were the precise words. There was a feeble comment from the Confederation of British Industry and then the whole thing was dropped. One


would not have been able to read any reference to it in the popular press and only on inside pages of the so-called serious newspapers.
There are many deficiencies in British industry, which I will not go into, connected with the class and education system in this country. Even if we complete this internal market, our trade and manufacturing performance will continue to deteriorate until we have swept aside the bulk of management in British industry at every level. It is either incompetent, or unable to take advantage of opportunities when they arise. I exempt from that management in our major multinational companies and in a few key industries.

Mr. Marlow: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that it would help to improve the attitudes, activities, ambitions and effectiveness of that management if a Labour Government, of which he would like to become a member, were to impose upon it swingeing levels of penal private taxation.

Mr. Deakins: I fear that if I followed the hon. Gentleman in that remark, although I am happy to take issue with him, I would be straying outside the rules of order. I am sticking completely to the internal market.
Just in case right hon. and hon. Members think that I have it in for British industry, I have to say that industries in other countries are also inefficient. The trouble is that the are less inefficient than we are. I shall tell the Committee four horror stories about United States industry just to show that it is not only our own industry that suffers. I shall quote from a recent publication of the Hunger project:
Some American firms that have ventured abroad have made costly blunders out of ignorance. 'The Chevrolet Nova—
a motor car—
did not sell in Latin America. When spoken 'No va' means 'it doesn't go' in Spanish.
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am finding it difficult to relate this to the subject of the amendments, which is the internal market.

Mr. Deakins: I shall certainly stop there. I was seeking to show that I was not being unfair in criticising just British industry for its performance and potential performance in the Common Market because some of the strictures I have made could equally apply to industries in other countries.
I turn to the impact of the internal market on this country as a whole not merely on our trade, investment or employment and so on. What will be the impact on our regional policy? That is a matter which concerns many people, not just Opposition Members but Tory Members. What will the completion of the internal market —freedom of capital movement—do to investment? Many of us live in the prosperous south-east, although parts of inner London are rather like an outpost of the north stuck down in the middle of the prosperous south. The north-south dividing line is the Bristol-Wash line which is becoming more and more like the Himalayan mountains. What will the completion of the internal market do to the north-side divide? Contact with industrialists has already convinced me— I did not need much convincing—that the combined effects of the development of a third London

airport at Stansted, the completion of the M25 ring road and the prospect of the Channel tunnel will make the south-east of England even more of a magnet for British industry. The north-south divide will get worse, and our industrial decline will accelerate.
12 midnight
I turn, finally, to the impact—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh".] I am trying to truncate my remarks. If the Committee feels that I am being unfair, I shall quote from the report by the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Overseas Trade. The report, in its conclusions, analyses the reason why our manufacturing trade has been so bad, and why our industrial performance has been so poor. That is directly relevant to the issue of whether we should vote for a Bill which will speed up the creation of the complete internal market. House of Lords report No. 238, 1984–85 Session — it attracted some notoriety at the time —commented on the deficit and the balance of trade in manufactures. The report concluded that that was brought about by
poor export performance"—
that is not surprising—
and high import penetration".—
I should have thought that those were blinding statements of the obvious; however, it is nice to have it in writing—
across a wide spectrum of manufacturing industry".
Paragraph .3, chapter 7, states:
In the long term the Committee single out poor investment, poor cost competitiveness and 'cultural' factors as the principal determinants".
The Committee then considered remedies. I wonder whether the Government accept those remedies. I have not seen a reply by the Government in the House of Lords. Perhaps they have not bothered to reply. I do not know how they treat reports by Select Committees in the other place. They are pretty cavalier in their attitude towards reports by House of Commons Committees. When the Government reply, they tend to dismiss most of the recommendations. [Interruption.] I have been a member of Select Committees every year that I have been a Back Bencher. I have been on Select Committees for 11 years. With the exception of the Committee on which I currently serve, the Select Committee on Public Accounts, the performance of Governments—it may apply to Labour Governments; I do not make any party political point—in replying to Select Committee reports has been deplorable. A lot of hard work goes into their recommendations.

Mr. Leighton: I am certain that the Minister is immaculate in that respect, but perhaps her reputation is besmirched by some of her colleagues. Is my hon. Friend aware that, in respect of a Select Committee with which I am connected, a press conference was held to issue a report, and reporters went along to the conference with a press release in their pockets rubbishing the report? That happened before the report was even published.

Mr. Deakins: My hon. Friend has made his point. Had he sought to catch your eye, Sir Paul, he may have made the point in a slightly different way and brought it within the rules of order.
I should like to know from the Minister what the Government think about the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee. Paragraph .5 of that important report states:


The Committee believe that urgent action is required now to revive manufacturing and stimulate trade in manufactured goods because"—
we come to the crux of the Government's arguments for completion of the internal market—
service industry cannot substitute for manufacturing because many services are dependent on manufacturing and only 20 per cent. of services are tradeable overseas".
How does the Minister like that? The report continues:
there is no reason to expect any automatic resurgence of manufacturing and trade when the North Sea oil surplus declines because the decline in manufacturing and in the trade balance in manufactures was not the inevitable consequence of the advent of North Sea oil and because the effect of North Sea oil on the exchange rate movements is uncertain … new industries and new products usually grow out of long established activities and require a long time scale for development".
The target of 1992 should be a long enough time scale for anyone contemplating entering the vast new market which is dangled before us. The report continues:
lost markets will be difficult to regain … lost manufacturing capacity will take a long time to restore".
What does the Minister have to say about those criticisms? The summary states:
Unless the climate is changed"—
in the United Kingdom—
so that steps can he taken to enlarge the manufacturing base, combat import penetration and stimulate the export of manufactured goods, as oil revenues diminish the country will experience adverse effects
That is nothing to do with completion of the internal market. The Select Committee was not contemplating that prospect. The Minister will, of course, tell hon. Members that completion of the internal market will enable us to overcome all the deficiencies mentioned in the report. the Committee referred to
a contraction of manufacturing to the point where the successful continuation of much of manufacturing activity is put at risk … an irreplaceable loss of GDP … an adverse balance of payments of such proportions that severely deflationary measures will be needed … lower tax revenue for public spending
that is not directly relevant to this subject․
higher unemployment, with little prospect of reducing it".
Is the Minister going to tell us that there is a big prospect of reducing unemployment if she is allowed to have her way and the internal market is allowed to be completed? Those are the criticisms of the House of Lords Select Committee in a widely trumpeted report.
I should like now to address my remarks through the Committee to the party which I have the honour to represent. If the Bill is passed and the internal market completed, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve a number of the remedies which the Labour party has for the deficiencies in British manufacturing, trade and investment. Recently, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that the internal market depends on the complete liberalisation of capital movements. He said that we wish to ensure that capital is brought back into Britain from the rest of the Community and from the outside world. To be directly relevant, I shall concentrate on capital from the rest of the Community. How will it be possible to bring back capital from the rest of the Community when, under new article 70(I), capital is being completely liberalised? In the report last year by the Presidency of the Commission to the European Assembly, the President said:
The following fields and measures were considered to be of high priority".
One measure was

liberalisation of capital movements.
What does the Common Market have in store for us? On 23 May 1986, an article in the Financial Times referred to the President of the Commission unveiling a
scheme to lift all EEC capital movement controls".
How will my party react to that? Once we are in the complete internal market, how will we cope with our plans for capital movements? There are Commission communications to the Council about liberalisation not merely of taxation but of capital movements. We were told that the process would be speeded up. I shall not weary the Committee by reading out the Agence Europe report. Had I time, I should have done so for the Committee's benefit, so that hon. Members could hear from the horse's mouth what is in prospect for this country.
I shall address my points to the Committee, but they are specifically directed at my right hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench, who are in charge of these matters, rather than those of my colleagues who are sitting in the Chamber. The Labour party says, and will be saying to the British people, at the next election the following things. It says that it will curb imports, but curbing imports from the rest of the EEC is impossible by virtue of articles 12, 30, 101 and 102 of the treaty of Rome. It says that it will encourage British industry through the selective use of public purchasing. Selective use of public purchasing is not merely forbidden by a number of articles in the present treaty of Rome but will be made impossible by the completion of the internal market. That must give the Government some cause for concern. I am not sure what their view is. All public purchasing will have to be put out to competitive tender among all the firms in the EEC. There cannot be any behind-the-stage deals, tenders just to one's friends or contracts For British firms. It must all come out in the open. That is the type of competition which some right hon. and hon. Members may welcome. Good luck to them; that is their philosophy. I shall not argue the point with them now. I am merely pointing out the policies of the next Labour Government. We shall certainly have such a Government after the next general election—[HON. MEMBERS: Rubbish."] I hope that we shall. I do not want to provoke hon. Members. That Government will not be able to do some of the things that we want to do. The selective use of public purchasing is outlawed by several articles of the treaty of Rome and would be made impossible by the completion of the internal market by 1992.
The Labour party will insist that multinational companies source more of their United Kingdom markets from British production. Even the Government have tried to do that in talks with Vauxhall, General Motors and other multinationals in the motor car industry. But that is illegal under articles 7, 30, 92, 101 and 102 of the treaty of Rome, as well as being completely incompatible with the concept of a free internal market by 1992, which the Minister will be recommending to the Committee—I do not know on what grounds— when she replies to the debate.
The Labour party says that it will promote innovation through a flexible package of loans and equity assistance, but that is not permitted by several articles of the treaty of Rome and would not be permitted by the completion of the internal market in 1992. What will we do then? The Labour party says that it will provide sustained financial support to industry through a national investment bank.


That is a good idea, but it will be impossible under similar articles of the treaty of Rome and once the internal market is completed by 1992.
The Labour party will extend public enterprise through agreements with key firms. All these are good ideas and I support them wholeheartedly. Indeed, during the next general election, I shall be putting them to the British people on the doorsteps of my constituency and elsewhere. But although we tell the British people that we wish to do those things, we shall be prevented from doing them by the rules and regulations of the Common Market and by the completion of the internal market by 1992. The making of agreements with key firms is already illegal under some articles of the treaty of Rome.
The Labour party says that it will negotiate on investment with firms in key sectors, but that is illegal under articles of the treaty of Rome and will be impossible when the internal market is completed. The party says that it will ask institutions to invest more of their funds in Britain, but, as I said earlier in relation to capital movements, that will be impossible. We shall be saying all those things to the British people between now and the next general election.
The Labour party will have a tough policy on takeovers and mergers. I wholeheartedly support that, but how does it square with article 85 of the treaty of Rome and what is in store for us after the completion of the internal market by 1992? Unless we change our relationship with the Common Market and unless we defeat this attempt to complete the internal market by 1992, it will be extremely difficult — I put it no higher than that — for a Labour Government to carry out the guts of their economic, industrial and financial policies.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman could go a little further. He has set out what the industrial policies of the Labour party will be. Could he say what the policies of the Labour party will be towards the Common Market?

Mr. Deakins: That would take me outside the scope of the debate, so I shall not be tempted. I have put before the Committee matters which are on the public record. They are part of the Labour party's jobs and industry campaign on television and in leaflets, so I am not giving away any secrets. I would not do that to the party. We are publicising all those matters.
My question to the Labour party is, will we be able to do those excellent things if Britain is still in the Common Market by the time we get a Labour Government and if the internal market is on the way to being completed? That is my major reason for opposing the completion of the internal market. Nothing in our trade, industrial or manufacturing performance will alter during the next seven or eight years. Some Conservative Members agree with much of what I have said about the performance of British manufacturing industry. I wonder where the Minister will find hope and on what premise she will base her argument in reply to the debate, which will be that the completion of the internal market will be good for British industry, manufacturing, services, trade and the British people. The evidence that I have put before the Committee shows that it will not be. However, I am prepared to be shot down by statistics from the Minister. I look forward with great interest to her reply.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Marlow: Can the motion be debated?
Question put and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.